So the other day someone asked the Men’s Rights subreddit “Why do people think you guys hate women?”
There were a lot of ridiculous answers to that question, but one of the most ridiculous (and one of the most highly upvoted) responses came from our old friend John Hembling, the blabby Canadian videoblogger and A Voice for Men “Editor in Chief” also known for some dopey reason as John The Other. He explained:
![johntheother [-37] 29 points 3 days ago (36|7) They dont actually think we hate women. The accusation is a derailing tactic, designed to push the topic towards a defensive posture, and requiring proof from us (MRAs) that "hatred of women" is a false claim. When used, it takes the discussion away from real issues such as suicide rates, homelessness, infant genital mutilation and so on. It's very very effective, because it plays on the fact that almost all men, including MRAs are basically decent. And the social stigma of a public perception of hatred of women is painful. To overcome this tactic, it is necessary to discard a self image relying on consensus approval. Tough to do because we are social animals. But to disarm the attack of "you hate women" it's necessary to develop a strong self identity which takes no account of consensus conferral of approval. Be the "bad man", and let only your own internal compas of right and wrong guide you.](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/jtohatewomen2.png?resize=580%2C246&ssl=1)
Really, John? Because I have something like 1200 posts on this blog here that would seem to suggest that, no, a lot of MRAs (and PUAs and MGOTWers) really, honestly, sincerely, and sometimes even proudly, hate women. (Ok, a certain percentage of my posts are actually about kitties, but still, I invite you to spend a month or so going through the archives, John; you may learn a thing or two.)
But, actually, there’s no need to take my word on the subject. Because if you really want to know why so many people think MRAs hate women, I invite you to take a look at and a listen to this video by a prominent MRA. Seems pretty obvious that this guy hates women, wouldn’t you agree?
Oh, by the way, this guy is you. [TRIGGER WARNING for people who are not John Hembling and who might be disturbed by a smirking asshole literally laughing about rape. Seriously. This is bad even by his standards.]
Oh, another by the way: Hembling complained about feminists “doxing” him long after he made the video that was excerpted here in which he gave out his name. That’s right, he put his name out in his own video, then complained that feminists were violating his privacy and basically terrorizing him by ever mentioning his name. Until he started going by his real name again.
Before I go, here’s another particularly inane contribution to the Reddit discussion:
Huh. MRAs certainly have a most unusual way of “walking on eggshells.” Indeed, to this outside observer it looks a lot less like “walking on eggshells” and more like “angry toddler having an endless stompy tantrum.”
So now I’m suffering from false consciousness? Wow, that’s not patronizing at all.
(This is exactly why I’m really tired of this conversation.)
You apparently believe that a good atheist is seen and not heard, while religious people can discuss their deities wherever. Perhaps I’m the one that’s wrong. Perhaps religious beliefs should be granted special status and considered off-limits. What do you think?
Yes, Nepenthe, freemage managed one entire comment of “God is an asshole and I’m sooo glad I’m an atheist so I don’t have to believe that shit” before devolving into “believers are deluded” and now you with your “OMGZ persecution!” Given that my initial thesis was (and remains) “this sort of discussion is fruitless in this sort of setting,” this is all bolstering it.
Look, if you want to go around picking fights with religious people over the fact that they believe in stuff that we don’t then nobody can stop you, but I’m not required to join in. I’m happy to fight politicians who try to impose their religion via the government, but in terms of what random people on the internet believe in I really don’t see why their beliefs are any of my business.
And with that I am done with this conversation. (Apparently that needs to be stated explicitly since the “ugh I’m so tired of this” hints aren’t working.)
Yeah, I’m definitely ranting about persecution and not calmly pointing out the consistent, if sometimes subtle, privileging of religious voices over atheist ones, to the point where even atheists believe that we’re supposed to shut up.
Or how you, a religious person, interpret on topic criticism of a religious subject as assholery because it’s not sufficiently nice. For example, perhaps you could show where freemage said that believers are deluded. I imagine you’ll find it right next to the passage where Dworkin says that all heterosexual sex is rape.
How come John the Otter was so afraid of the box cutters?
@CassandraSays
You know, the only “contribution” you’ve made to this conversation is that you’re done with this conversation. Why does it matter to you if some atheist on the internet isn’t being nice? Why did you feel the need to step in and actively assert your “done-ness” with this conversation?
I agree with katz; this is entirely fruitless.
I stepped in because I don’t like seeing regulars who’re political allies being condescended to because of their beliefs. If they were suggesting that their beliefs determine the legal system that I have to live under then sure, that would be worth calling out. But the constant implication that people who’re religious are dumb and if they just thought about things more they’d agree with us? That’s unkind and pointless, imo.
Now, are you finished sniping at me for not being the right kind of atheist? Because I believe I tried to exit this conversation already.
Aaliyah: Oh, maybe not entirely fruitless. It’s a good demonstration of derailing (remember when we were actually talking about the book of Job?).
And I think the constant implication that good atheists are quiet atheists is unkind, but very point-y, as is the constant implication that disagreement is automatically condescending if it comes from an atheist. Nowhere here has anyone said that believers are deluded. Nowhere here has anyone said that believers are stupid. That’s been read into statements by atheists.
(To me, this impulse on the part of religionists and their defenders smacks of desperation and “protesting too much”, like how veg*ans are shouted down if they mention the cruelty of factory farming, but ymmv.)
No one’s stopping you from leaving, you know, just like no one compelled you to announce your distaste for this conversation.
And now I’m supposed to leave (this thread? the blog?) because I don’t agree with you? Nope.
Estimated time to meltdown: 15 minutes
Katz, I’m so so sorry for derailing a bustling conversation about the Book of Job. Oh wait, either you or kittehserf (it’s arguable) are the one’s who started the “baaaad atheist” segment of this conversation.
CassandraSays, I’m merely noting that no one is forcing you to participate. No one is forcing you to read. If you find discussions about religion distasteful, there’s a discussion about video games going on in another thread.
Today’s winner of the unintentional irony award is…
Nepenthe, you are trolling. Nobody wants to talk to you because you are trolling. You have not said anything that was true, useful, relevant, interesting, or worthy of discussion, and you are rapidly ceasing to put on even the slightest pretense of any of these. And you have been here long enough to know that being the last person in a conversation by attrition doesn’t make you win.
Uh, I don’t find discussions about religion distasteful, I find atheist-blaming distasteful. Are you suggesting that if I see discriminatory behavior or attitudes that I ought to go discuss video games instead? Is it just religion that I’m supposed to apply that to, or should I apply it to gender as well?
I’m not the one who’s made 4 comments about how done with this conversation I am.
Saying things that don’t give you warm fuzzies =/= katz.
Correction:
Saying things that don’t give you warm fuzzies =/= trolling, katz.
Oh, could you point out the specific things I said that were untrue? That’s very concerning to me. I find truthfulness very important.
Wow, so now pointing out that generalising about even one religion’s adherents as if US fundamentalists are representative of anyone else is calling Freemage a “baaaad atheist” or telling atheists in general to be quiet.
That’s rich.
Oh, and kindly don’t lump me in with “the religious” as if that’s 1) a homogenous group and 2) what you’re implying, kthnkz. I agree with Cassandra and katz on the way this has gone.
So, here was the original quote from Freemage:
The implication being that since the text “contains a lot of crap”, the whole institution built around it is suspect. That’s the argument I was responding to. I don’t see anything in here about the supposed omnipotence of God or inerrancy of the Bible being part of the problem, but maybe it was implied and I missed it. But since plenty of Christians are aware of the Bible’s history and don’t believe it is inerrant, I’m not sure you can say that its flaws are “a huge problem” across the board.
Although one does wonder why even the people who are aware of its history are still using the exact same version as everyone else…
@Katz
Does it? I keep quite a few around for their poetic value and, yes, for spiritual warm fuzzies. There are some lovely bits in both the Bible and the Hadith about how to treat other people, for instance.
I didn’t get that from what Freemage wrote, at all. Overly broad generalizations and telling Christians what they believe instead of asking them, yes, but I didn’t see them calling you delusional.
@Nepenthe reading over the thread again, I do see where you’re coming from. All Freemage did was state that they believe Christians to be incorrect, and people jumped all over them, and that’s far too common when an Atheist dares to say “I think you’re wrong” about someone else’s religion. I apoligize for piling on.
@kittehserf
My apologies. I should have said “theists and supernaturalists”, who are, I think, homogenous only in their belief in the supernatural. But maybe it’s too much, from all that I know of you, to conclude that you believe strongly in the supernatural, in which case feel free to correct me.
@emilygoddess
Even if one accepts that the Bible was written by humans, it doesn’t change the problem of the triple-O deity that it supposedly describes having not settled the score, causing immense human suffering, not to mention eternal damnation of billions, if you’re into that sort of thing. It’s not really that the text contains a lot of crap, it’s what that implies. This is specific to religions that posit a triple-O deity though.
And thank you. The fact that religionists and supernaturalists can be totally unaware of their privilege, even in social justice spaces, is particularly grating.