Categories
Uncategorized

The Feminists: A story so frighteningly impossible, you won't believe it wasn't collectively written by the Men's Rights subreddit

Uh oh.
Uh oh

 

A tiny group of gallant men (and “their women”) go underground to fight the evil gynocratic overlords. Is this the plot of a terrible dystopian potboiler from 1971, or a description of how most MRAs see themselves, and the world, today?

Turns out it’s both. I found this pic in the Blue Pill subreddit, and now I really, really want to read this book.

Here’s a book review from someone who did.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

496 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
weirwoodtreehugger
7 years ago

I missed whatever that was about “brights” but it sounds pretty stupid. If you have to brag about intelligent you are, you probably aren’t all that intelligent.

Robert
Robert
7 years ago

Kitteh – yeah, the Dictionary Defense sounds like a Dawkins move.

I spend a bit of time over at FreeThoughtBlogs, home of PZ Myers, Ophelia Benson, et alia. Despite not actually being an atheist (yet), I have found it a very congenial place. The ongoing battle they wage against the forces of badminded nastiness is a big part of that. They don’t support smugma, either.

Zolnier
Zolnier
7 years ago

Oh and Katz, the indigo children crowd have already made up a next generation, crystal children. Soon enough we’ll have chaos emerald children and philosopher’s stone kids.

kittehserf MOD
kittehserf MOD
7 years ago

The Brights thing was, oh, about ten years ago, maybe a bit more. The idea was (purportedly) to come up with a term that was less confrontational (!) than atheist. Trouble was, of course, that it was trying to foist a word with no history of that use, but plenty of baggage (if you’re not bright, you’re dim). Saying it was supposed to be a noun instead of an adjective didn’t help at all. It was coined by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell* and promoted by Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins, for a while, at least. It was a silly rebranding exercise, really.

*who may or may not be cats in a human suit

kittehserf MOD
kittehserf MOD
7 years ago

Robert, yeah, I hang out there a bit despite not being at all atheist. I tend to avoid the specifically religious topics. It’s just as well I can’t log in there, for some reason, because much as I like reading, I don’t think I’d be too comfortable taking part. As far as the science goes, I’m totally out of my depth!

The snark is the best thing, especially when Louis is on a roll. Must go with the name. 😀

katz
7 years ago

Oh and Katz, the indigo children crowd have already made up a next generation, crystal children. Soon enough we’ll have chaos emerald children and philosopher’s stone kids.

Right, I mean the next next generation, the ones after the crystal children.

katz
7 years ago

So PZ Myers seems like a really cool person, but FreeThoughtBlogs and “freethinkers?” Same problem yet again.

Zolnier
Zolnier
7 years ago

It goes indigo children, crystal children, star children, and then brights, because they have ascended physical matter and therefore gem structures and stellar formations. Then their kids realise their great, great grandparents were mostly people on the autistic spectrum whose parents refused to face it head on and help them adapt.

pallygirl
pallygirl
7 years ago

Isn’t this just all proof that if a particular positive word occurs in a name, it indicates the name thing isn’t? Like the amazing atheist isn’t amazing, the Brights people aren’t particularly bright, etc. If a group feels like they need to add a positive word to their brand, it explicitly indicates that their brand is not making that association for them. Is anyone here a marketer so they could get better where I’m trying to go with this?

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

I’m baffled as to how anyone could have thought that “the brights” would be a less confrontational term than “atheists”. “Atheist” is just a word that tells you that a person doesn’t believe in a deity – “brights” is way the hell into “fuck you, I’m the specialist snowflake of all” territory. It doesn’t even read as arrogant to me so much as insecure and childish.

Zolnier
Zolnier
7 years ago

@pallygirl

And Dear Leaders are usually terrible.

kittehserf MOD
kittehserf MOD
7 years ago

I’m not a marketer, but I get what you mean, pallygirl. It’s sort of like the NiceGuy phenomenon – if you have to go around telling people you’re a nice guy, you probably aren’t. (Had a moment like that on ER last night – Taglieri telling Hathaway “I’m a good guy”. Yeah, dude, she lived with you, either you’ve already demonstrated that or not; it’s also a pretty low bar for Reasons She Should Move Back In.)

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

If someone tried to describe themselves as “a bright” to me irl I’m pretty sure the resulting eye-rolling would give me a migraine.

Robert
Robert
7 years ago

Katz, the term freethinker has a respectable history. Although for me, it will always be associated with the Voice Farm song.

katz
7 years ago

Isn’t this just all proof that if a particular positive word occurs in a name, it indicates the name thing isn’t?

“People’s Republic”

pallygirl
pallygirl
7 years ago

Anyone who describes themselves as a bright has to obey the inverse square law. It is known.

katz
7 years ago

Katz, the term freethinker has a respectable history.

What is its history? (I’m asking out of honest curiosity.)

kittehserf MOD
kittehserf MOD
7 years ago

It comes from the Enlightenment, I think.

If someone tried to describe themselves as “a bright” to me irl I’m pretty sure the resulting eye-rolling would give me a migraine.

I’d just love to say “a bright what?” if someone claimed to be one. Or maybe “I’m more a matte with subtle sateen hints, m’self.”

Sally Strange (@SallyStrange)

Yeah; so the “bright” thing was coined by that subset of atheists who:

-are white cishet men
-are disproportionately in control of mainstream atheist organizations
-receive disproportionate amounts of media attention when it comes to talking about atheists
-are generally hostile to feminism and any sort of intersectional analysis that doesn’t put white cishet men squarely at the center of it
-are also hostile to the mere idea that sociology and social sciences–the disciplines that have given us the best tools to understanding intersectional oppressions–are valid academic fields.
-overlap with MRAs quite a bit
-overlap with libertarians quite a bit

So, if you’re going to come up with a name that accurately and succinctly sums up the characteristics of this group of people, let me know, because the rest of us atheists would really like to put some distance between ourselves and them. It would be great if all y’all social justice-minded theists would, you know, NOT allow those bigoted assholes to claim all of atheism and associate the entire concept with pigheaded privileged bigotry. Just a thought.

The rest of FreeThoughtBlogs really runs the gamut, from even more awesome than PZ Myers when it comes to social justice to kinda “meh” on social justice (but generally great in some other area). A whole bunch of new bloggers have joined in the past couple years, there are many more bloggers of color there, more women, and the roster has gotten more international. If you haven’t checked it out in a few years then you should

“Freethought” is a historic term with a lot of actually really great baggage. I don’t understand the hate for “freethinkers.” It’s an honorable tradition.

The hostility towards atheists is one reason I don’t post here as much as I did when I first found this blog.

pallygirl
pallygirl
7 years ago

I would point out that I’m low voltage, but didn’t think I was illumination-grade, although my PN junction requires voltage in a specific electrical polarity.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

“I’m reflective – if you say stupid things to me then I’ll reflect them right back at you. This is a defense mechanism that some creatures evolve over time as a way to ensure that they only have to hear stupid argument once.”

Sally Strange (@SallyStrange)

Freethought: http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/Freethought-Revival.aspx

An interview with Susan Jacoby about her book on the subject. She’s an atheist who SHOULD be getting just as much public and media attention as Dawkins or any of his well-known brethren, if not more.

pallygirl
pallygirl
7 years ago

@Sally Strange:

It would be great if all y’all social justice-minded theists would, you know, NOT allow those bigoted assholes to claim all of atheism and associate the entire concept with pigheaded privileged bigotry.

I’m an atheist myself, but I don’t think it is reasonable to make that request of theists. I see atheists criticise christians and muslims for not speaking out against the more extreme variants of their beliefs. If that is a valid request to make of theists, then the equivalent applies to atheists. Otherwise it’s a different application of rules depending on group membership.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

Part of the reason that Dawkins gets so much attention is that a smug middle aged white man with a posh British accent is pretty much exactly who people are most likely to accept being talked down to by.

kittehserf MOD
kittehserf MOD
7 years ago

::waves::

Hi Sally!

-are also hostile to the mere idea that sociology and social sciences–the disciplines that have given us the best tools to understanding intersectional oppressions–are valid academic fields.
-overlap with MRAs quite a bit
-overlap with libertarians quite a bit

Urgh, gah, I hadn’t known that bit. My eyes are rolling really hard now. Should have bloody known.

Do the Slimepitters fancy themselves as Brights?

It’s not hostility to atheists, here. It’s hostility to people being asshats about it. I would think most Mammotheers are atheist or pretty close to it.

It would be great if all y’all social justice-minded theists would, you know, NOT allow those bigoted assholes to claim all of atheism and associate the entire concept with pigheaded privileged bigotry.

Was that a typo for atheists? Otherwise I can’t quite follow.

kittehserf MOD
kittehserf MOD
7 years ago

Part of the reason that Dawkins gets so much attention is that a smug middle aged white man with a posh British accent is pretty much exactly who people are most likely to accept being talked down to by.

Plus a certain schadenfreude in watching Mr “Should Never Be Allowed On Twitter” open his mouth to change feet.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

His ability to bite off his own toenails is impressive, you have to admit. Most people would just go get a pedicure, but not Dawkins! He has social media for that.

Sally Strange (@SallyStrange)

Do Slymepitters fancy themselves Brights? No, I don’t think so, though it would fit right in with their ethos.

I’m an atheist myself, but I don’t think it is reasonable to make that request of theists. I see atheists criticise christians and muslims for not speaking out against the more extreme variants of their beliefs. If that is a valid request to make of theists, then the equivalent applies to atheists. Otherwise it’s a different application of rules depending on group membership.

I do my best to not hold individual Christians responsible for the actions of Christian terrorists, even when I’m pointing out direct links between accepted theology and violent action. I try to acknowledge the existence of theists who oppose racism, sexism, homoantagonism, and all types of bigotry whenever it’s relevant to the subject at hand. So, no, I don’t think it’s an unreasonable request, on account of it’s something I do myself. I do it because I think opposing bigotry is a value that crosses metaphysical boundaries and that disagreement about the existence of gods (or conveniently vague god-like concepts) is less important to me than disagreement about basic human rights for all people.

katz
7 years ago

Interesting, I didn’t know “freethinker” went back that far. I guess I’d assumed it was another product of this generation of atheists. Still, it’s hard to hear that term without thinking “…as opposed to people who don’t think freely.”

The hostility towards atheists is one reason I don’t post here as much as I did when I first found this blog.

Point out the hostility, please.

kittehserf MOD
kittehserf MOD
7 years ago

His ability to bite off his own toenails is impressive, you have to admit. Most people would just go get a pedicure, but not Dawkins! He has social media for that.

::dies::

I saw that so clearly. If only I could draw it.

kittehserf MOD
kittehserf MOD
7 years ago

katz, yeah, I used to dislike the term before I knew its history. My reaction was “What’s so free about it if one’s not free to think differently on religion/supernatural/etc subjects?” Possibly it raised my eyebrows a bit because I live in a country where – at least in the cities most people live in – there’s waaaaay less conservative religious pressure or power over daily lives than there is in so much of the US. Not that that’ll last, the way things are going.

pallygirl
pallygirl
7 years ago

@SallyStrange, I agree that opposing bigotry should be an action we all perform irrespective of our cultural/religious beliefs. However, atheism has its bad press because of the perceived atheism community itself. As has been pointed out by others (not on this blog perhaps, I haven’t read enough of the comments to know whether it’s cropped up here), the common application of the term “atheist” relies simply on the absence of belief. I have read posts by PZ Myers where he argues that there should be other attributes that go along with being atheist (such as not being a misogynistic or libertarian idiot, for example). And then there ends up being the shit storm of arguments with some saying that the dictionary definition only of atheist should hold and others saying that there should be a wider moral basis.

I think that atheism will always have its arsehole elements, who form a sizeable sub-percentage, because people will continue to use atheist as the (correct) term to refer to themselves when they don’t believe in god. What other term are they going to use? The problem is the word, and people’s understanding of the word, and it’s not going to go away. Any attempt to redefine atheism so it excludes people who don’t believe in god is going to meet with strong resistence.

This is where I think feminism is better, because it opposes bigotry. As a feminist I don’t care about what people’s religious beliefs are, I just care that they have the same social values as me (except for the TERFs, who don’t sound particularly nice or insightful). If a person is a feminist, does it matter whether they are atheist or not?

tl;dr maybe atheism is something we should replace as a term.

Zolnier
Zolnier
7 years ago

Did freethinker exclusively apply to atheists back then? Or could it be given to any thinker who was outside their locale’s orthodoxy?

emilygoddess - MOD
emilygoddess - MOD
7 years ago

I haven’t really noticed any hostility to atheists here, except perhaps the accidental hostility of using “asshole atheist” in an unclear way. But given that multiple atheists in the past few months have said that they find this place hostile, I’m starting to wonder if perhaps I’m just not seeing clearly. As someone pointed out upthread, my culture it pretty hostile to atheists overall, and we know that oppressive memes can be internalized even by well-meaning people, so IDK, maybe we should at least be open to the discussion?

Falconer
7 years ago

@SallyStrange:

It would be great if all y’all social justice-minded theists would, you know, NOT allow those bigoted assholes to claim all of atheism and associate the entire concept with pigheaded privileged bigotry. Just a thought.

I see your fingers moving but all I’m reading is What about the mennnnnnz?!

The hostility towards atheists is one reason I don’t post here as much as I did when I first found this blog.

FWIW I am an atheist and I don’t feel unwelcome here.

kittehserf MOD
kittehserf MOD
7 years ago

I’ve had the impression that the “you’re hostile to atheists” comments have mostly come from people who’ve made swipes – intentionally or not – at not-atheists* and been called out. The complaints have tended to be from new commenters. My feeling is that some people, at least, have expected to be able to take shots not just at shitty stuff coming from organised religions, but at any form of personal belief. I could be totally wrong about this, of course.

But I’ll say this much: I wouldn’t like WHTM to echo specifically atheist sites where that sort of sniping’s the accepted norm – the very things this thread veered to, calling people delusional or woo-merchants or irrational or mentally ill or whatever. That stuff is why I would not feel at all safe commenting on Pharyngula, for instance. It’s not my safe space, it’s a safe space for people with different beliefs on that particular subject. Which is as it should be, but as I said, I’d hate for this place to go down that path.

All the same applies in reverse, about sniping at people for being atheists, not for being asshats, atheist or not.

*I don’t want to use the term theist in this context because it’s too narrow.

weirwoodtreehugger
7 years ago

I haven’t really noticed any hostility to atheists here, except perhaps the accidental hostility of using “asshole atheist” in an unclear way. But given that multiple atheists in the past few months have said that they find this place hostile, I’m starting to wonder if perhaps I’m just not seeing clearly. As someone pointed out upthread, my culture it pretty hostile to atheists overall, and we know that oppressive memes can be internalized even by well-meaning people, so IDK, maybe we should at least be open to the discussion?

Thanks for that.

I think people are automatically on the defensive when it comes to atheists and primed to find anything we say offensive. Saying “I don’t understand X about Y religion” or “aspect X of Y religion doesn’t seem very logical to me” is taken as an attack on all practitioners of Y religion when it isn’t.

A higher burden is placed on us to not offend anyone with a different worldview than anyone else. Atheists are a marginalized group that gets treated as a dominant group for some reason. Even many atheists have internalized this. And because atheists are so knee jerk hated, many of us become defensive in return and are sensitive to perceived hostility. I don ‘t understand why we are the only non-privileged group that isn’t allowed to sensitive. It would be a huge social justice no no to believe that about any other group wouldn’t it?

What’s also getting a little lost in this conversation is that Grumpy Old Man doesn’t even identify as an atheist. He said something someone didn’t like about Christianity and was attacked for being an “asshole atheist.” Making an assumption that if a perceived to be assholish comment about Christianity must be from an atheist, is indeed an attack on atheism and an assumption that we must be assholes. I think that’s a big part of why a couple of atheists got upset and I don’t think it’s unjustified.

I know the intent to be bigoted against atheists isn’t there, but considering that so many non-troll atheists feel hostility, an effort to be a little more sensitive would be nice. Just remember that a lot of us aren’t assholes but have gotten a ton of unjustified flak elsewhere.

Falconer
7 years ago

I’ve had the impression that the “you’re hostile to atheists” comments have mostly come from people who’ve made swipes – intentionally or not – at not-atheists* and been called out. The complaints have tended to be from new commenters.

If I had all the time (and patience) in the world, I’d go trawling through the comments and see what I could dig up about this, although I’m not the stats whiz Argenti is.

There’s also all those first-time commenters who post a couple times and then flounce because we’re “mean to newbies” in general.

Howard Bannister
7 years ago

I think part of what’s going on is that we’ve drawn a definite correlation to a certain form of atheism–the ‘asshole atheism’ Kittehserf mentioned–and the MRM.

A flavor of libertarian atheism, if you will.

A very mock-worthy form of atheism.

And I think we take potshots at that on occasion.

There’s also been incidents where we’ve had dustups along those fault lines, and so I could have sworn everybody was walking softly about the subject recently.

Howard Bannister
7 years ago

PS: a near-synonym to asshole-atheism is ‘amazing atheism.’

Howard Bannister
7 years ago

Also, I am remiss if I don’t point out that at times we here at this site have had incredible adventures with religion and atheism.

INCREDIBLE ADVENTURES.

Lea
Lea
7 years ago

Hi Sally!

I’ll admit it. I thought the Brights idea was a good way to avoid way to avoid the stigma of atheism at one time. It seemed like picking a positive, sort of cutesy word to describe a lack of supernatural beliefs was a nice first step in re-branding the “community”. They refereed to people with supernatural beliefs as “supers”, in an attempt to create positive little labels for everyone. The problem is that you don’t pick a label to give to another group of people who already like their current label just fine and cute little nicknames don’t change anything about how people see a group or their beliefs. You could call skinheads “Shinies” and they’ll still be the worst. I’ll still think their worldview is shitty and wrong.

Sally Strange (@SallyStrange)

Sorry, Katz, it was at least 3 years ago and I didn’t keep screenshots. You’re just going to have to take my word for it. The way you acted towards Grumpy Old Man in this thread is about the size of it, though.

To be clear, the hostility wasn’t TERRIBLE. It wasn’t like, “Wow, these are a bunch of slavering fundamentalists who want to impose theocratic rule!” It was more like, “Wow, people aren’t receptive to my habit of constantly pointing to the connections between religious belief and the oppression of women, among others, and since I’m really interested in talking about that a lot, and since there are other fora where people are more likely to share my view on that, I’ll probably stick to commenting in those places.”

There is a serious rift developing in organized atheism right now – a lot of you probably know some of the background, since WHTM has covered many of the instances that constitute the genesis and development of this rift – but it seems to be widening and deepening at the moment. The rift is essentially between MRM style atheists, in whose ranks we can sadly place Richard Dawkins, the RDF, and American Atheists, and social justice, pro-feminist atheists and atheist organizations. Here you’ll see FTB and, to a lesser extent, the Center for Inquiry (who do a lot of good work advocating for reproductive freedom and science-based, secular health care, but not enough work advertising those aspects of what they do).

I just think that if you allow the former group of atheists to dominate your mental image of atheists, that means that the sexist libertarian wing of organized atheism wins. That means more struggles, harassment, and difficulties for women, feminists, and other marginalized people who feel strongly about atheism, secularism, and skepticism, and it means fewer opportunities for actual alliances between atheists and religious people who share similar values when it comes to social justice.

As to the term “freethinker”: it means, and pretty much always has meant, someone who doesn’t defer to authority and dogma in assessing reality and making decisions but instead looks at evidence and relies on their own judgment. It can and has included people who believe in god or gods but adopted heretical versions of religious teachings. These days, however, since the advancement of scientific observation of the world has pretty much removed any rational reason to believe in supernatural beings, there are very few people who adopt the label and still maintain theistic belief.

Before you go off on how mean I am to religious believers–I really don’t think that there’s any rational reason to believe in god or gods, and I’m not going to change my mind about that. (Unless you have some truly world-shattering new discoveries to tell me about, of course.) That means I think you’re being irrational on the subject of the existence of god or gods, not (contra the posturings of the MRM and their atheistic affiliates) completely irrational, delusional, idiotic across the board, or mentally ill. I’m fairly confident that I have some irrational beliefs (though I couldn’t tell you which ones; if I knew, I’d be getting rid of them) because I’m confident that all humans have irrational beliefs. It’s just the way our brains work.

But the fact that I had to go into a long paragraph of explanation detailing that my position that religious belief is generally inherently irrational (i.e. not based on evidence) is not an attack on religious believers nor an announcement that I think all believers are irrational fools is kind of annoying and I prefer to have discussions on the subject where I don’t have to interrupt myself constantly to offer those kinds of caveats. Usually. But this was nice.

Sally Strange (@SallyStrange)

Hi Lea!

You seem to be talking as if I had some hand in the invention of the term Brights, or was ever a fan of the term. I wasn’t. Hope that clears things up.

Sally Strange (@SallyStrange)

Also, I didn’t follow Falconer’s remark – my wanting non-atheists to not cede atheism, in their mental maps of things, to the libertarian sexist wing of atheism is a WATM complaint?

Falconer
7 years ago

Also, I didn’t follow Falconer’s remark – my wanting non-atheists to not cede atheism, in their mental maps of things, to the libertarian sexist wing of atheism is a WATM complaint?

Is it feminism’s responsibility to deal with men’s issues?

Is it theists’ responsibility to reserve a notional space for atheists, or ours to keep it?

Falconer
7 years ago

I just think that if you allow the former group of atheists to dominate your mental image of atheists, that means that the sexist libertarian wing of organized atheism wins.

Why do the theists gotta fight our fights for us?

weirwoodtreehugger
7 years ago

I really don’t think that there’s any rational reason to believe in god or gods, and I’m not going to change my mind about that. (Unless you have some truly world-shattering new discoveries to tell me about, of course.) That means I think you’re being irrational on the subject of the existence of god or gods, not (contra the posturings of the MRM and their atheistic affiliates) completely irrational, delusional, idiotic across the board, or mentally ill. I’m fairly confident that I have some irrational beliefs (though I couldn’t tell you which ones; if I knew, I’d be getting rid of them) because I’m confident that all humans have irrational beliefs. It’s just the way our brains work.

That’s about I feel about the subject of religion too. It is in no way an attack on a whole person, I just genuinely don’t understand why some people are evidence based in most things and then believe in a supernatural deity. I don’t get it at all. That isn’t meant as an offense to anyone who does. It’s just that I don’t understand it.

pallygirl
pallygirl
7 years ago

I just think that if you allow the former group of atheists to dominate your mental image of atheists, that means that the sexist libertarian wing of organized atheism wins.

These are the atheists who are dominating the media, social and otherwise (fourth estate). It’s not a matter of theists, or other atheists allowing this group to dominant discourse, which is a perception issue, it’s that this group of atheists does actually dominant atheist spaces. The complaint inside social justice atheist circles is that this group is the dominant group.

The problem lies in atheism. The issue is that an atheist is defined by one trait only – disbelief in a god/gods. There is no central core of beliefs that defines atheism, unlike say a particular flavour of religion where we can see how that group contributes to the community, where they stand on social justice issues through their actions and teachings, etc. There is no atheist equivalent.

Given that being an atheist is no protection against being an arsehole, what is more important: how a person stands on social justice issues or whether they think there is a god/gods (or are agnostic)? And this is where feminism comes in.

katz
7 years ago

I think people are automatically on the defensive when it comes to atheists and primed to find anything we say offensive. Saying “I don’t understand X about Y religion” or “aspect X of Y religion doesn’t seem very logical to me” is taken as an attack on all practitioners of Y religion when it isn’t.

A higher burden is placed on us to not offend anyone with a different worldview than anyone else. Atheists are a marginalized group that gets treated as a dominant group for some reason. Even many atheists have internalized this. And because atheists are so knee jerk hated, many of us become defensive in return and are sensitive to perceived hostility. I don ‘t understand why we are the only non-privileged group that isn’t allowed to sensitive. It would be a huge social justice no no to believe that about any other group wouldn’t it?

We (in the West) do live in a Christian culture, so I freely admit that I have cultural biases here that I may well not be aware of, and other people should feel free to point them out.

And also I don’t want to turn this into a poll of how many atheists feel hostility here or don’t, because even if it’s a small minority, they have a legitimate right to not feel that way.

But within the context of progressive/feminist blogs, what you’ve described seems like the exact opposite of my experience. To me, it seems like atheists who are so inclined are quite comfortable dropping demeaning comments about religion of the “you’re deluded” or “you’re irrational” sort into conversations with rather little prompting and often don’t see why those sorts of comments are a problem at all.

In my experience on this blog, Kittehserf has been right: It’s annoyance at smugma that has been sometimes taken as hostility against atheists. Ann provides an example in this very thread.

While I’d very much like to change my behavior if it’s making atheists uncomfortable, I (again agreeing with Kittehserf) will not let this be a place where people randomly insult me and go unchallenged, which is what happens on basically every other feminist blog in the universe.

So can anyone provide an actual example of a conversation that made them uncomfortable as an atheist, or that they thought might have made other people uncomfortable? “Three years ago with no link” doesn’t count, sorry.