NOTE: Just one more day of the Man Boobz Pledge Week! Big thanks to everyone who has donated!
If you haven’t yet, and want to, here’s the button you’re looking for:
UPDATE: Vacula has resigned.
As most of you are no doubt aware, the atheist and skeptic movements have had just a teensy bit of a problem with misogyny in their ranks. You may recall the unholy shitstorm that erupted last year when Rebecca Watson of Skepchick casually mentioned in a YouTube video that it might not be such a good idea for dudes to try to hit on women in elevators at 4 AM. The assholes of the internet still haven’t forgiven Watson for her assault on the sacred right of creepy dudes to creep women out 24 hours a day, every day.
Watson is hardly the only skeptic to face vicious misogynist harassment for the crime of blogging while feminist. Last month, Jen McCreight of Blag Hag announced that near constant harassment from online bullies was wearing her down to such a degree that she felt it necessary to shut down her blog – hopefully only temporarily.
I can no longer write anything without my words getting twisted, misrepresented, and quotemined. I wake up every morning to abusive comments, tweets, and emails about how I’m a slut, prude, ugly, fat, feminazi, retard, bitch, and cunt (just to name a few). If I block people who are twisting my words or sending verbal abuse, I receive an even larger wave of nonsensical hate about how I’m a slut, prude, feminazi, retard, bitch, cunt who hates freedom of speech (because the Constitution forces me to listen to people on Twitter). This morning I had to delete dozens of comments of people imitating my identity making graphic, lewd, degrading sexual comments about my personal life. In the past, multiple people have threatened to contact my employer with “evidence” that I’m a bad scientist (because I’m a feminist) to try to destroy my job. I’m constantly worried that the abuse will soon spread to my loved ones.
I just can’t take it anymore.
McCreight’s harassers and their enablers were delighted in this “victory,” taking to Twitter to give McCreight some final kicks on the way out the door. “Good riddance, #jennifurret , you simple minded dolt,” wrote @skepticaljoe. “I couldn’t be happier,” added @SUICIDEBOMBS. “Eat shit you rape-faking scum.”
One of the celebrators that day was an atheist activist named Justin Vacula, who joked that “Jen’s allegedly finished blogging…and this time it’s not her boyfriend who kicked her off the internet.”
So here’s the latest twist:
Justin Vacula has just been given a leadership position in the Pennsylvania chapter of the Secular Coalition for America, a lobbying group for secular Americans whose advisory board includes such big names as Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Susan Jacoby, Wendy Kaminer, Steven Pinker, Salman Rushdie and Julia Sweeney.
It’s an astonishing choice. In addition to gloating that bullies had led McCreight to shut down her blog, Vacula has harassed atheist blogger and activist Surly Amy, including writing a post on A Voice for Men (yes, that A Voice for Men) cataloging all the sordid details of his supposed case against her. At one point he even posted her address, and a photo of her apartment building, on a site devoted to hating on feminist atheist bloggers.
Blogger Stephanie Zvan has set up a petition on Change.org urging the Secular Coalition of America to reconsider its choice. You can find further examples of Vacula’s questionable behavior there.
As Watson notes in a post on Skepchick, Vacula’s position with the SCA is likely to “drive progressive women away from the secular cause.” She adds,
I will never, ever get involved with SCA so long as someone like him holds a position of power anywhere, let alone in a state I live in. So Vacula is actively driving people away from SCA. …
It’s all a real shame, because SCA fills an important role in our movement and I’d like to give them my support. … I don’t believe secular organizations should reward bullies and bigots with high-level positions, even if those positions are volunteer-only.
I recommend that everyone here take a look at the petition.
I clicked on that link and didn’t know whether or laugh or cry. Few things are sadder than the uninformed ramblings of a nasty, self-pleased, idiotic child, ramblings that display an absolute conviction that she is being very clever. This is someone who grew up in an echo chamber and probably got an earful about the evils of abortion, premarital sex and homosexuality when she was still a toddler — and from parents who doubtless complain about the “sexualization of children”. Hence the “gotcha”-style letter that betrays a complete lack of even a minimal understanding of evolution and group selection.
My only hope is that she will one day venture out of her Bumfuck, Missouri (or whatever) without parental supervision and learn enough to be embarrassed by this letter — if not for her attitude towards LGBT people, then at least for the fact that that B- in junior high biology was an act of charity on the teacher’s part.
You also have the common phenomenon of “most privileged members of a minority rise to the top of the movement, proceed to act like assholes about anything that doesn’t effect them.” See racism in feminist and GLBT movements, anti-trans* feminists, etc.
The Corporate/State is our new god and the mass media is the mouthpiece of the church. The mouthpiece explains that there are potential non-believer terrorist threats against the godstates moral wisdom, in poverty stricken countries like Yemen and Pakistan. Blood sacrifices must be offered to our godstate because they haven’t been enlightened by the progressive wisdom of the godstate. The mouthpiece at the church praises us for the sacrifices we offer, although much more blood will be required to appease the godstate. “Yes We Can!” The masses cry out.
If something was considered immoral in the past, the godstate’s mouthpiece will inform us of our ignorance. If even one person says, “Yes, that should be considered moral.” The godstate loves all his children and will give the masses, law. The godstate’s mouthpiece is always righteous and true. It is gospel. Everyone, everywhere always turns to their godstate to tell them right from wrong. Let us pray.
Also, I’m in principle down with the idea of judging people for their actions, not their beliefs, and not holding all members of a religion accountable for the actions of a few, but I do think there are cases where the distinction gets blurry. There are some issues for which religious groups are the driving antagonist, such as homophobia in the United States; that doesn’t mean that all or even most religious people or groups are homophobic, or that we should excoriate religious people just for being religious, but it does mean that to accurately address the problem we have to acknowledge its cause, which is a particular kind of toxic religious belief. (Obviously, religious beliefs aren’t the only ones that can be toxic, and I think there are probably also issues for which the secular community is principally responsible, and in those cases the secular causes should be acknowledged as such to better address the issue. The first example that comes to mind is France’s veil laws, although that’s admittedly a mixed case because I think it results primarily from the conjunction of secular ideals and historically Christian culture combining to “other” Muslims.)
Does that make sense? It’s similar to my objection to people who say “We shouldn’t be feminists, we should be humanists, to show that we care about everyone’s problems!” There is value to being specific in addressing the roots of problems; it’s true on some level to say “The problem isn’t religion, the problem is people being assholes,” but “people being assholes” is probably too vague to tackle and it obviates the cases of people being assholes in specifically religious ways for specifically religious reasons.
And if anything I’ve said feels like I’m attacking religious people for their beliefs, I’m sorry. This didn’t come out quite as articulate as I might have wanted; hopefully I don’t sound like a douche.
It makes sense to me, Gametime, and I don’t read your posts as attacking religious people for their beliefs. I agree that certain beliefs linked with religion and faith are absolutely problematic and need addressing. I just don’t think “believing in a deity/afterlife makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside” is one of them, which seemed to be coming across in some of the earlier posts in the thread.
But you can be more specific: that the problem is that they are trying to enforce their religious beliefs on a community which may have a wide variety of beliefs. If you’re clear about the problem, you’re not only going to be able to tackle the problem easier, but you’ll find more allies.
I mean, I’m Jewish and queer. Some of the orthodox Jewish communities push back hard against queer rights. But if someone tells me the problem is that religion creates a toxic atmosphere for queers, I’m not going to want to help that person because they’re not acknowledging my experience; my religious community accepts me just fine.
I think there is a difference between criticizing individual religious people and criticizing religious institutions, and while I think they are both sometimes appropriate, criticizing the institution is probably your best bet. I’d stay away from criticizing an individual unless their religion was affecting your life or they are an authority (e.g., criticizing the Pearls* for promoting child abuse and marital rape under the guise of religion would be perfectly appropriate) but criticizing the Catholic Church for having its priorities upside down when it comes to sexual abuse or criticizing The Prosperity Gospel for preying on people and excusing greed (and for seemingly not bothering to read their own holy book) is perfectly appropriate.
*If you haven’t heard of the Pearls, don’t look them up unless you have a strong stomach. They wrote what are basically child-abuse manuals and every so often a parent using their methods ends up killing one of their children.
NWO, I’m not sure what you’re on about. I’d think blood sacrifices would be right up the alley of a crap Christian like you.
Agreed. (It’s kind of weird that “religion makes some people happy” was put forward as a criticism – like, kitten videos make me feel fuzzy for no “rational” reason, does that make them terrible?)
That’s a good point, and I definitely concur about not erasing people’s experiences. I’m not sure “don’t force your beliefs on others” is quite broad enough to tackle the issues I’m worried about – off the top of my head, I think believing that homosexuality is a sin is likely to lead to a number of microaggressions and bullying even if the person isn’t trying to convince others of their position or get legislation passed – but it’s definitely pointed in the right direction.
Agreed (although it can get tricky when you’re talking about people who serve as representatives of a larger organization or people who support a problematic institution in some ways but not others).
For someone who proclaims himself a Christianity, it’s interesting how when the hated feminists are defending faith, NWO chooses to ignore that and instead rant about the evil media. Would “willful ignorance” fall under pride or wrath?
A Christian, that is, not “a Christianity.” The last thing we need is the One Holy Church of NWOSlave.
@lauralot,
There’s not a category for “being a dumbass?”
@inurashii
From Justin’s post:
“It’s even more bizarre that people claimed that I filed a counter DMCA in order to get the personal details of ‘Surly Amy.’ To dispel this myth amongst a forum community I chat with, I explained that her personal details are already public and can be easily found via her trademarks (one can look at a trademark registry and find the info). I posted those details rather than — as I would now — simply noting that the information was public (even though people can, as I said, easily find the info). ”
He explains his thought process. He also admits that the made a mistake.
BTW, if you wanted to threaten someone on the internet would you do it while posting under your real name?
@PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
You didn’t emphasis this important part from your source: ““harassment” means a series of acts over any period of time ”
I would say, posting someone’s address is just one act.
@pecunium
My position is that harassment is a serious accusation. I don’t think anyone should make such a accusation lightly and I don’t think the accusation is warranted in this case.
NWO’s really going on about the Corporate State recently, isn’t he? Of course, it’s filtered through the lens of his particular brand of crazy. It’s like Alex Jones and Noam Chomsky had a child.
Well, no, but I’m also not a sexist ding-dong, so it’s not really relevant.
If we’re gonna start down the “Oppressive assholes couldn’t possibly do [X], that would be stupid of them!” road, we’re gonna be here all night.
Well, no, I wouldn’t, but a LOT of people do that literally every day. See also, some of David’s other posts.
Guys he didn’t harass, he just enabled other harassers! Golly Gee! What sillies we are for calling him a harasser when he’s just a harassment enabler! Do you really expect us to believe he just posted that information as a “hey guys! Guess what’s on the internet?”? That’s the biggest load of baloney I’ve seen since I worked at a sandwich shop.
You know, Thomas, for someone who’s ostensibly part of the skeptic community, you sure are cool with taking your figureheads at their word.
Ninja-ed by Gametime.
BTW, if you wanted to threaten someone on the internet would you do it while posting under your real name?
Lots of people do. Adam Yoshida comes to mind. He is/was Canadian. Is a massive fan of Bush II. He published someone’s home address; in a directly indirect threat.
He lived more than 1,500 miles from his target, but said he hoped nothing bad happened to him now that lots of people who had reason to hate him knew where he lived.
After all, he wasn’t going to do anything, and there was no direct connection to anyone who might do it.
It’s almost impossible to prosecute. Which is why people do it.
My position is that harassment is a serious accusation. I don’t think anyone should make such a accusation lightly and I don’t think the accusation is warranted in this case.
We agree about the first sentence. I even agree with the first clause of the second.
The last part… I think you are either disingenous, overly invested, or a fool.
Fuck, if you want to go the “no one would make a public threat because that would be stupid” route, I’m pretty sure at one point (or maybe a few points? I can’t remember all of the terrible from that man because there was literally too much always) Fox news pundit Glenn Beck was recorded on cable tv giving out the addresses of liberal political leaders. Which of course wouldn’t at all be a dangerous combination when coupled with all of his violent rhetoric about “culture wars” and the like. /sarcasm
Anti-choice activists tend to to do this for abortion providers as well. What’s sad is it’s actually fairly common, but it’s rarely taken seriously, even if, after threats were made, the person committed violent crimes. The threat-maker turned violent criminal is written off as an outlier, as “crazy” etc and not recognized as part of the bigger problem of a culture that is complacent in regards to addressing and stopping violence.
In other words, I went to some trouble to search for her personal info in an obscure government database that relatively few people know about.
And then shared that personal information (the address of her personal residence, along with a photo of it) online with a group of people I knew to be hostile towards her.
HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE ME OF HARASSING HER! I AM THE REAL VICTIM HERE!
Oh great, and turns out the concern troll who bashed a local Wisconsin news anchor’s weight (a woman, natch) is a secular humanist. Seriously, male atheists, you wonder why you can’t seem to attract many women to your cause….maybe it’s because we see so many examples of you being such asshats to women?
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/03/wisconsin-tv-anchors-bully-responds-slim-down-for-the-kids/
I’m a devout Roman Catholic and I’m …mostly ok with people giving me the side-eye when they find that out. I’ll be the first person to stand up and recite the (long, long, long and depressing) laudry list of faults the RC church has. (For realz, they are awful in a lot of ways). What I don’t appreciate is someone assigning my theism to some sort of “broken-brain” state or a failure in logical/rational thinking. (I have two “hard” science degrees and am currently employed *as* a scientist. I can critically think just fine, kthxbai).
My faith and my parish are very important to me. They are intrinsic to who I am and any attempt to quantify “faith” as neurochemicals and mental evolutionary spandrels doesn’t even come close to representing my experiences. Any more than “oxytocin!!!!eleventy” explains the subjective experience of love. Love and faith and a whole host of other feelings are very important and very central to people’s lived experiences and I think dimissing them as “warm fuzzies” or “irrational” is devaluing a lot of human experiences. We don’t live on logic and reason alone.
I’m also all about letting people’s actions speak louder than their affiliations. However, like I said, I’m understanding when people side-eye me over the Catholic thing (it’s different in Canada than it is in the USA, in that religion is less political, but it’s more of a difference in magnitude, not kind). Just as I’m understanding when POC side-eye my whiteness, or QUILTBAG folks my straightness. That’s ok. I am willingly a part of an organization with a large, loud percentage of flaming douchewaffles, and you have every right to be suspicious of that.
But like I said, this is *my* church and *my* faith and it’s important enough to me that I’m not going to let the assholes have it. I disagree strongly with the way the leaders (and a lot of the members) of my church go about displaying themselves as representatives of our faith and I won’t stop trying to fix it from the inside out.
Posting an address on the interwebz and leaving it up day after day is a series of harassing acts.
Depending on how bad the eventual consequences are, a judge will consider the mere sequence of searching out the address, hitting control c, going to one’s blog and hitting control v, then seeking out a photo of the residence itself, copying it to one’s blog and then publishing it as a series of harassing events as it is clear the intent was to cause serious annoyance to the intended victim.
Kind of like how some mobster goon walks into a shop going “Gee, real nice place you have here, shame if something happened to it.”
Not actually annoying or threatening by spoken word but annoying and threatening none the less.
@princessbonbon
Also I feel like I should point out that the reason that Vacula doxxed Amy in the first place seems to be that someone (who may or may not be Amy herself, he doesn’t know) issued a DMCA takedown notice on a post Justin made that was part of a long campaign of harassment against skepchicks.
This IS an extended series of acts. Claiming that it’s “just criticism” or that Amy was “participating in the suppression of free speech” is either naive or actively disingenuous.