Paul Elam has apparently become something of a comedian – though not on purpose. In his latest post on A Voice for Men, he takes on the atheist community for being too in thrall to (wait for it) feminism.
I’ll let him explain:
[T]hey are too religious. Yes, I mean that literally. For when you wipe away all the bombastic bellowing about empiricism and the strident mocking of those who choose a life of faith, what you are left with is a population of people that surrender their reason and cognition as though they were at gunpoint; that hit their knees as fast as any Catholic…to worship at the altar of feminism.
His proof? Several years ago someone at Atheist Nexus posted a link to a Men’s News Daily column of his, and – get this! – some feminists responded!
You can go here to see all the horrible things these evil cultish feminist atheists said. Like, for example:
I guess I’m a feminist, but I really like men and these are some of the things I love about them:
Protectiveness is a positive trait in men that women who want to have babies look for. We also like passion and some recklessness, but you won’t get me to admit that to my daredevil husband…..
Confidence; men usually have more of it and it is mostly a postive trait.
The ability to make decisions quickly.
Physical strength and endurance are helpful in many family situations. Ahem.
Penises. You have them, lots of us like them. I know it’s not technically a “trait”, but I had to put that in.
You can practically taste the man-hate there!
Elam, I should note, ignores that comment. No, what’s got his underpants in a wad is this comment:
The whole web site mensnewsdaily.com is a sad overreaction to the growing equality of women in society.
Evidently he’s been stewing about this remark for more than two years.
In fact, if you go and take a look at it, the discussion on Atheist Nexus wasn’t … really … all that feminist. Yes, several people criticized Elam and mensnewsdaily as “extreme,” but one of those people also criticized radical feminists as similarly “extreme.” Some of the commenters explicitly identified themselves as feminist; others explicitly criticized feminism. Nonetheless, the discussion somehow managed to be the politest conversation about gender I’ve run across online in a long, long time.
Seriously. Go take a look at it. Then consider how Elam sums it all up:
Apparently they can’t even handle 50 years of loud mouthed arts majors without drinking the Kool-aide and going brain dead. There was scarcely a voice among them that did not wallow in the ersatz enlightenment so common to feminist ideologues.
And then he moves on to whatever this is:
Feminism, as far as ideology goes, has been very effective at using human reproductive realities to co-opt other movements. In fact, from the American Civil Rights Movement to Occupy Wall Street, feminism has progressed without paying its own way, but rather by sending women in to other social arenas and wheedling men into supporting them. The Borg would be proud if they had emotions. Resistance is Futrelle.
Ho ho! Futrelle rhymes with futile! Sort of! Lest Elam and co. become too overwhelmed with pride for this clever wordplay, I should note that some junior high schoolers beat him to the punch back in the late 70s. Or maybe it was grade schoolers. I really don’t remember.
I’m less clear about the rest of his argument about “human reproductive realities.” Apparently it’s a fancy way of saying that dudes only support feminism so they can get laid. Another highly original notion.
Elam’s other piece of evidence that feminism has taken over the atheist community? PZ Myers.
He quotes this evil athio-feminazi ideologue arguing that if male atheists want to get more women involved in the atheist community, they should:
Learn to shut up and listen. Seriously. You want women to find your organization pleasant and interesting and worth contributing to? Then don’t form panels full of men trying to figure out what women want, talking over women who try to get a word in edgewise, belittling women’s suggestions with jokes, and trying to determine how We Well-Meaning Men can give Those Women what we think they want. You are assuming an authority and presuming that it is in your power to give it to the minority, when what you should be doing is deferring to that minority and giving them your attention, letting them speak and shape your organization.
God – or, if you prefer, Imaginary Entity – forbid that male atheists actually listen to women explain why they might feel unwelcome in the mostly male (and not particularly feminist friendly) atheist community.
You really think feminism has taken over the atheist community? Take a look at Reddit’s Atheism subreddit, where, recently, a woman who recently described how she had been raped was attacked as a liar and a slut in a thread filled with rape jokes. Or go back a little further to the Elevatorgate brouhaha, where an atheist blogger who politely mentioned in a podcast that she doesn’t really like being hit on by strange men in elevators at 4 AM drew the ire of countless angry atheist dudes, including Richard Fucking Dawkins himself? (In case you want to revisit that bit of nastiness, I wrote about “Elevatorgate” in several blog posts; here are some reactions from decidedly non-feminist atheists.)
This is a movement that “worship[s] at the altar of feminism[?]” Not really seeing it, dude.
But again, congrats on the whole Futrelle/futile thing. Genius!
Rutee, well then, you can’t say that there’s no God, either, because there’s no evidence for anything. It’s unobservable.
MRAL: That’s what got me so angry about SRS and their myopic, narrow, jackass view of the world. Bet they can’t wait to hate on those two boys, fucking pricks. </i<
Maybe you should stop imaginig all the evil things the femsinists are going to say/do and take a look at what they are are saying.
Wallowing in your sense of injury and outrage at what you think feminists are going to do… is a huge part of your (and TAA’s) problem.
@Lauralot:
I also went through that experience, where I would out of ignorance rail against political correctness–and even ranted on occasions about points that were MRA talking points by any other name, ugh–but unfortunately for me it came many years later. I was probably MRAL’s age when I finally came around and realized what an ass I had been. I’m probably only two years older than MRAL is now so it’s definitely possible he’ll grow out it too.
Katz: But they were all on THE SAME DAY, so that’s once.
SRS- I don’t know if they’re feminist or not, and I’m not going to visit it- according to Holly, encourages hatred of white males. She SAID that. Since the boys were white males, that means SRS encourages hatred of them. So, there you go.
Yes, MRAL, we’re gross disgusting, and creepy. Stop projecting.
Isn’t it past your bedtime?
I don’t believe Holly’s philosophy, because that means I share an overlord-consciousness with people like, well, the SRS regulars. Actually, I’m surprised a feminist would buy into that, because it means they share an overlord-consciousness with the horrible men.
If they wanted to actually be subversive, they could go on at length about how gross, disgusting and creepy women are. But you can’t have that, amirite?
Right, ’cause no one ever says anything like that. All the fucking time.
Dracula, well, when we’re talking about conventionally attractive women, no, I never hear that. NEVER. Even if she’s a rapist, she’s treated as “kooky” (Wedding Crashers).
I see MRAL is still peddling his delusions and wasting his life. *Yawn*
I think the logical structure of reality can meaningfully be called god, OR NOT, and that if there is a sense in which the theist and the atheist might find themselves “subject” to a transcendent principle, if not being, then that’s the road which dovetails with much religious and non-religious philosophy in interesting ways, and which may be a very promising path for the human race’s spiritual/non-spiritual future, as the case may be.
This is not quite my view, which I’m still trying to nail down (and while I do plan to do history of religion, etc, I’m not a philosopher), but it’s very close –
http://praxeology.net/unblog03-04.htm#02
http://praxeology.net/unblog03-04.htm
If nothing else, this means you can’t get me with “can god make a rock she can’t pick up,” because in a sense, god is the fact you can’t make a rock you can’t pick up. :p I don’t claim to be theistic in the sense most people would understand it, but this does me for a “god of the philosophers”.
What I think no philosophy can fully explain to me, or to anyone, is why the fuck MRAL is still here.
I mean, it’s not like it’s a popular misogynistic trope to portray women (or at least, certain women) as evil disease-ridden death traps. No sir.
@ Kyrie
re: It being the Jews’ fault. No shit. Everything is our fault (mwahahahahaha)
<..>
<.<
@ Holly
My personal theology is actually remarkably similar to yours, except that I DO believe that God (defined as the animating force/ soul of the universe) is aware of/loving us, just maybe in a general way? And I define as a plain old monotheist. It's interesting how words mean different things to different people.
Dangit, those were supposed to be shifty eyes!
Long past time for MRAL to get off the Intertubez and seek help. (Putting him back on moderation might assist this process.)
By the logic you employ, you should accept our claims that women are the oppressed gender, because you provide no evidence it isn’t true. Even you follow the rule I say I should spurn, you just do so despite direct evidence to the contrary.
“Dicks are ugly, women are beautiful” is a mainstream view because the mainstream assumes everyone thinks like a straight cis man. And if you’re a straight cis man, you have no use for any dick besides your own. It’s not man-hatred but everyone-is-a-man projection.
Also, speaking as a fat butch woman, “women are beautiful” really only means certain women. The rest of us are somewhere between hilarious, criminally derelict in our beauty duty, and nonexistent.
*straight man who sleeps with cis women, really
@Holly
I was under the impression that “straight” referred to cis-on-cis, as it were.
Shadow – Ah, I’ve just been using it for “man-on-woman.” …I have a feeling, without even looking it up, that there are very long Internet arguments about this.
Oh, great, more MRAL-wasting-his-life drama. And this thread had the potential to be so interesting.
Sorry – sort of double post.
Pharyngula used to have a lot of overprivileged white guys pissing and moaning in the comments, usually along the lines of “I’m so logial, why doesn’t everyone bow down to meeeee?” I don’t hang out there much any more, but I’ve noticed that PZ is a lot more inclined to bring down the banhammer. Maybe he got sick of the same bullshit over and over.
@Holly
Sorry, I was unclear. I meant I thought it is used to refer to cis-man on cis-woman. I’m not up on the issues at all, I was just wondering if I was misusing the term. I was just a little confused by your clarification:
Shadow – I’m not totally up on the precise meaning of “straight” either. The clarification was just to make “not interested in any dick but his own” not come off erasing women who have dicks.
All right, Holly, let’s say you’re right (you’re not). But if you were, why is SRS just reinforcing these “patriarchal norms” by saying “dicks are ugly”.. They should adopting female as a default and saying, ugh, gross, those fatty blobs, how could anyone be attracted to THEM? HAH!