(Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Kochanski]

Originally Posted by franklinveaux

Wow, seriously? For reals? How can anyone not read that Twitter account and see that it's parody? (In particular, it's a meanspirited parody of some of the ideas of third-wave feminism; that's why the Twitter account makes specific and frequent mention of "third-wave atheism." It even says so in the Twitter description.)

Folks....it's parody. It doesn't rise to the level of humor of the Landover Baptist Church Web site, and it's certainly nowhere near The Onion, but it's parody. It's not serious. Not a word of it. It's a reaction against complaints that the skeptic and atheist community is misogynistic, which deliberately borrows language from Third Wave feminism to attack people who complain about misogyny in the atheist community.

I happen to think it's poorly done; I do believe that the atheist and skeptic communities really do have a problem with misogyny. Obviously, the person or persons responsible for the Atheism+ Twitter feed disagree.

The Twitter feed may be a parody but Atheism+ is something that has been proposed seriously.

[Myriad]

Did anyone else notice the stench of neurotypical privilege in Carrier's spirited defense of "retarded" as an insult?

Quote:

Likewise words like “retarded”: when I call someone or something retarded, I am not referring to actual mental disability or the actually mentally disabled. I am therefore not commenting on them. Therefore I cannot be slurring them. If I called a mentally disabled person a “retard!” then I’d be using a slur.

Context changes the meaning of words. This is a basic fact of language.

No, what you're doing is choosing (among all the available insults in the language) to use an explicit comparison to a developmentally disabled person as an insult. No, the meaning of the word has not changed.

Try it this way: "Likewise when I call someone or something I dislike '[N-word]-like' I am not referring to actual black racial characteristics or actual black people. I am therefore not commenting on them. Therefore I cannot be slurring them. If I called a black person a '[N-word]' then I'd be using a slur."

What a ******** excuse. I guess some privileges are privileged.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Myriad

Did anyone else notice the stench of neurotypical privilege in Carrier's spirited defense of "retarded" as an insult?

Wonder if that logic works elsewhere. "No, see, he's not black, so I'm not using a slur when I use that word!"

This has nothing to do with privilage. This is mere justification, a wall of rationalization built to protect this clown from the simple fact that he has become what he ostensibly hates.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by Myriad

Did anyone else notice the stench of neurotypical privilege in Carrier's spirited defense of "retarded" as an insult?




No, what you're doing is choosing (among all the available insults in the language) to use an explicit comparison to a developmentally disabled person as an insult. No, the meaning of the word has not changed.

Try it this way: "Likewise when I call someone or something I dislike '[N-word]-like' I am not referring to actual black racial characteristics or actual black people. I am therefore not commenting on them. Therefore I cannot be slurring them. If I called a black person a '[N-word]' then I'd be using a slur."

What a ******** excuse. I guess some privileges are privileged.

Respectfully,
Myriad

More to the point, you hear this exact same bovine excrement from gamers defending using "gay" and "faggot":
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discu...he-word-faggot
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/07/do-...-too-casually/

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

Can some American please vote for the Libertarian Party in November and tell these clowns that it's because of them? Lots of beers promised when we are together in the dungeons of Carrier and Myers.

On a more serious note, I get the impression that what they don't like is that there are so many atheists and skeptics and humanists who are white males. While I'm all for trying to attract all sorts of people to skepticism, to complain at the attendees that most people who show up on meetups and the like are white males is silly. The people who show up are the ones who are interested and for whom it is convenient. What do you suggest, forcing women and minorities to attend at the point of a gun?

The massively ironic part is that Carrier, who is telling anyone who doesn't sign up unconditionally that they are racist, sexist bigots who should GTFO, is of course, a WMCM.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by franklinveaux

Wow, seriously? For reals? How can anyone not read that Twitter account and see that it's parody? (In particular, it's a meanspirited parody of some of the ideas of third-wave feminism; that's why the Twitter account makes specific and frequent mention of "third-wave atheism." It even says so in the Twitter description.)

Folks....it's parody. It doesn't rise to the level of humor of the Landover Baptist Church Web site, and it's certainly nowhere near The Onion, but it's parody. It's not serious. Not a word of it. It's a reaction against complaints that the skeptic and atheist community is misogynistic, which deliberately borrows language from Third Wave feminism to attack people who complain about misogyny in the atheist community.

I happen to think it's poorly done; I do believe that the atheist and skeptic communities really do have a problem with misogyny. Obviously, the person or persons responsible for the Atheism+ Twitter feed disagree.

However, much of what @AtheismPlus posts is almost direct quotes from some of the people promoting Atheism+. That's why it didn't jump out as parody from the start.

[zeggman]

Originally Posted by Myriad

No, what you're doing is choosing (among all the available insults in the language) to use an explicit comparison to a developmentally disabled person as an insult. No, the meaning of the word has not changed.

I am sure if you explain to him why he's made a fallacious argument, he'll either admit it or marginalize and kick himself out, as not part of his movement, and not anyone he any longer wishes to deal with.

'Cause, you know, he's like uber-rational. A+berrational?

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Myriad

Did anyone else notice the stench of neurotypical privilege in Carrier's spirited defense of "retarded" as an insult?




No, what you're doing is choosing (among all the available insults in the language) to use an explicit comparison to a developmentally disabled person as an insult. No, the meaning of the word has not changed.

Try it this way: "Likewise when I call someone or something I dislike '[N-word]-like' I am not referring to actual black racial characteristics or actual black people. I am therefore not commenting on them. Therefore I cannot be slurring them. If I called a black person a '[N-word]' then I'd be using a slur."

What a ******** excuse. I guess some privileges are privileged.

Respectfully,
Myriad

What I find objectionable about that whole exchange is not the particular reasoning about whether "balls" is wrong but "retarded" is right. People can have different opinions. It's the aristocratic air of handing down wisdom from the mountaintop. Look at the exchange about is/ought. It's not a matter of disagreeing. If you think you are capable of disagreeing with him, you're just wrong, and hence a bad, bad person. Not the kind to play Mario Kart with. His way or the highway.

How the very reasonable demand that people be treated with common courtesy could give birth to this monstrosity is bizarre. And scary.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by zeggman

I am sure if you explain to him why he's made a fallacious argument, he'll either admit it or marginalize and kick himself out, as not part of his movement, and not anyone he any longer wishes to deal with.

'Cause, you know, he's like uber-rational. A+berrational?

I think you'll find that the only reason that Myriad or anyone else would disagree with him is that they are filled with racist hatred and white male privilege.

[dasmiller]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Wonder if that logic works elsewhere. "No, see, he's not black, so I'm not using a slur when I use that word!"

This has nothing to do with privilage. This is mere justification, a wall of rationalization built to protect this clown from the simple fact that he has become what he ostensibly hates.

I know nothing about him except what I've read from his blog today. From my (mercifully) limited experience with acquaintances who were slipping into paranoid schizophrenia . . . he really does sound kinda like that. This business of identifying anyone who isn't an Atheist+^TM as an enemy is . . . disturbing.

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by El_Spectre

Ok, seriousness then.

Obviously, the environment shouldn't be hostile to particular genders, ethnicities, etc. That's a given. And I'm pleased to see that the demographics at TAM at least have gotten more diverse.

Agreed. And the rape threats at Rebecca Watson are horrible.

Originally Posted by El_Spectre

That said, it always makes me a little uneasy (as one of those evil white males) when someone - whether a speaker or a friend in the bar - starts talking about how much "we" need to "include" and "draw in" women, minorities, etc. to the event or "movement". The intent is good, but man, does it come off as condescending. It almost sounds like women and non-whites need to be rescued, to be enlightened.

That kind of thinking is unintentionally disrespectful, I think, and it makes me kinda sad.

At the least, they should not blame the white males who attend for being white males and destroying diversity or whatever by their presence.

[Acleron]

A+ may very well be used as a sociological study of how a religion starts.

They have self chosen their leaders.
Decided on what everyone has to accept.
Made a list of punishments for those who don't follow their rules.
Started reinventing the meaning of words.

Now, do they write their bible and appoint their prophets before they introduce god or vice versa?

[RebeccaBradley]

Originally Posted by Acleron

Now, do they write their bible and appoint their prophets before they introduce god or vice versa?

It sounds like they've got a headstart on scriptures. Richard Carrier's blog entry points to where his books lay out the necessary basis for all morality (reason, compassion, and integrity); and also lay out guidelines for judging when somebody is being stubbornly fallacious, and is therefore a heretic.

And anyone who questions his holy words will be cast into outer darkness - or at least into the sewers with the other CHUDs. What more needs to be said?

[lopeyschools]

Quote:

separates the light side of the force from the dark side within the atheism movement, so we could start marginalizing the evil in our midst, and grooming the next generation more consistently and clearly into a system of more enlightened humanist values.

So the line is drawn!

Are you a douchebag Dark Side Atheist? Or a Enlightened Atheist+?

Lightsabers will be issued shortly.

Choose wisely...

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by lopeyschools

So the line is drawn!

Are you a douchebag Dark Side Atheist? Or a Enlightened Atheist+?

Lightsabers will be issued shortly.

Choose wisely...

Hm. Those halfsword techniques I've been working on aren't really going to contribute to my longevity here, are they?

Originally Posted by Acleron

Now, do they write their bible and appoint their prophets before they introduce god or vice versa?

To be fair, they've got better documentation than most bibles do already. Of course, alien probings have better documentation than most religious books, so that's a rather dubeous honor...

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

At the least, they should not blame the white males who attend for being white males and destroying diversity or whatever by their presence.

At least! If white males enjoy something bad, ie.- slavery, they are vilified. If they enjoy something good, ie.- skepticism, they are vilified. If they enjoy something that has no moral aspect, they are vilified. One would almost think it's a set up.

When I look at the demographics of A+, I see a group of Johnny Come Latelies. They are pissed that the boat sailed before they were born. Everything in skepticism has been done and it is just a matter of engaging the same battles that have been fought so often before.

Unfortunately, that doesn't sit well with the narcissistic nature of A+ members.

Hotchkiss' seven deadly sins of narcissism:

Hotchkiss identified what she called the seven deadly sins of narcissism:

Shamelessness: Shame is the feeling that lurks beneath all unhealthy narcissism, and the inability to process shame in healthy ways.

Magical thinking: Narcissists see themselves as perfect, using distortion and illusion known as magical thinking. They also use projection to dump shame onto others.

Arrogance: A narcissist who is feeling deflated may reinflate by diminishing, debasing, or degrading somebody else.

Envy: A narcissist may secure a sense of superiority in the face of another person's ability by using contempt to minimize the other person.

Entitlement: Narcissists hold unreasonable expectations of particularly favorable treatment and automatic compliance because they consider themselves special. Failure to comply is considered an attack on their superiority, and the perpetrator is considered an "awkward" or "difficult" person. Defiance of their will is a narcissistic injury that can trigger narcissistic rage.

Exploitation: Can take many forms but always involves the exploitation of others without regard for their feelings or interests. Often the other is in a subservient position where resistance would be difficult or even impossible. Sometimes the subservience is not so much real as assumed.

Bad boundaries: Narcissists do not recognize that they have boundaries and that others are separate and are not extensions of themselves. Others either exist to meet their needs or may as well not exist at all. Those who provide narcissistic supply to the narcissist are treated as if they are part of the narcissist and are expected to live up to those expectations. In the mind of a narcissist there is no boundary between self and other.

And so, they are hell bent on making themselves relevant to the movement by any means necessary.

[WillyWonka]

Originally Posted by Ocelot

Atheists plus we care about social justice,<br />
Atheists plus we support women’s rights,<br />
Atheists plus we protest racism,<br />
Atheists plus we fight homophobia and transphobia,<br />
Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism.

I am always suspicious of any "social" movement who does not support "human rights". Here, it assumes that some rights are more important than others.

Conceptually, even religious freedom should be supported if you care about social justice.

[Acleron]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Hm. Those halfsword techniques I've been working on aren't really going to contribute to my longevity here, are they?

To be fair, they've got better documentation than most bibles do already. Of course, alien probings have better documentation than most religious books, so that's a rather dubeous honor...

Oh well, so it's straight to god then

[Skeeve]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

Agreed. And the rape threats at Rebecca Watson are horrible.

Which rape threats?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Walter Wayne

If the comments on Greta's most recent post are any indication, there are a fair number of people who hope other Atheists+ distances themselves from Carrier's post.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/20...-atheism-plus/

I wonder when FreeThoughtBLAHgs will weigh in?

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by Myriad

Did anyone else notice the stench of neurotypical privilege in Carrier's spirited defense of "retarded" as an insult?




No, what you're doing is choosing (among all the available insults in the language) to use an explicit comparison to a developmentally disabled person as an insult. No, the meaning of the word has not changed.

Try it this way: "Likewise when I call someone or something I dislike '[N-word]-like' I am not referring to actual black racial characteristics or actual black people. I am therefore not commenting on them. Therefore I cannot be slurring them. If I called a black person a '[N-word]' then I'd be using a slur."

What a ******** excuse. I guess some privileges are privileged.

Respectfully,
Myriad

For your amusement, read comments: 5 then 43, then 52, then 53:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/20...-atheism-plus/

I think the founders need better communication / coordination, and a business plan-- or at least a non-vapid mission statement (they left off puppies. Everyone who doesn't likes puppies / hate puppy suffering is dead to me...).

Any predictions on where A+ will be in a month or a year? If membership maps 1:1 with the FTB crowd, it would seem as embarrassing as their thunderfoot invitation.

Anyone read Carrier's books? I don't mind intellectual arrogance when it's earned, but those must be some fine books he wrote?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

Any predictions on where A+ will be in a month or a year? If membership maps 1:1 with the FTB crowd, it would seem as embarrassing as their thunderfoot invitation.

I was considering doing something to mock them at CSICon (late October) or Skepticon (early November), but now I'm not sure they'll even last that long.

And yes, I suspect you'll find it maps almost 1:1 with the #FTBullies.

[16.5]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

Anyone read Carrier's books? I don't mind intellectual arrogance when it's earned, but those must be some fine books he wrote?

Have you read his blog? Holy crap, the thing is a legitimate abortion

Signed

A CHUD

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by 16.5

Have you read his blog? Holy crap, the thing is a legitimate abortion

Signed

A CHUD

Just the one post linked here and had rather the same impression. I also understand you can buy his books by clicking on links he conveniently places t/o his commentary.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by zeggman

I'm I^n with the I^n crowd
I know what the I^n crowd knows
I'm I^n with the I^n crowd
I go where the I^n crowd goes

Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded.

YB

[tsig]

Originally Posted by lopeyschools

So the line is drawn!

Are you a douchebag Dark Side Atheist? Or a Enlightened Atheist+?

Lightsabers will be issued shortly.

Choose wisely...

I choose epees at 20 feet.

[RebeccaBradley]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

Just the one post linked here and had rather the same impression. I also understand you can buy his books by clicking on links he conveniently places t/o his commentary.

I bought a couple of his books after the debate in Calgary two to three years ago - and, to my shame, have done no more than dip into them since then. Nice-looking trade paperbacks from self-publishing presses (lulu and authorHouse); rather densely written, and to be honest they kept putting me to sleep. I've always considered this to be my fault, but I've stopped trying to read books that don't engage me because life is short, and there are so many books out there that do engage me.

[shawmutt]

Originally Posted by El_Spectre

Ok, seriousness then.

Obviously, the environment shouldn't be hostile to particular genders, ethnicities, etc. That's a given. And I'm pleased to see that the demographics at TAM at least have gotten more diverse.

That said, it always makes me a little uneasy (as one of those evil white males) when someone - whether a speaker or a friend in the bar - starts talking about how much "we" need to "include" and "draw in" women, minorities, etc. to the event or "movement". The intent is good, but man, does it come off as condescending. It almost sounds like women and non-whites need to be rescued, to be enlightened.

That kind of thinking is unintentionally disrespectful, I think, and it makes me kinda sad.

The White Man's Burden

[shawmutt]

In all seriousness, I just want to thank most of you here. I've been coming here a lot lately to stay abreast of all these recent developments, especially since elevatorgate. This is by far one of the lone bastions of rationality on the Internet regarding this skeptical blowup.

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

More to the point, you hear this exact same bovine excrement from gamers defending using "gay" and "faggot":
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discu...he-word-faggot
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/07/do-...-too-casually/

The FTB hypocrites are not above stooping to gay bashing when it suits their purpose either.

http://www.justinvacula.com/2012/06/...c-comment.html

[lopeyschools]

It just occured to me, that they have entirely misnamed their new movement.

It should be called Atheist Minus, because of all the people they plan on excluding.

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by RebeccaBradley

It sounds like they've got a headstart on scriptures. Richard Carrier's blog entry points to where his books lay out the necessary basis for all morality (reason, compassion, and integrity); and also lay out guidelines for judging when somebody is being stubbornly fallacious, and is therefore a heretic.

And anyone who questions his holy words will be cast into outer darkness - or at least into the sewers with the other CHUDs. What more needs to be said?

Many of Carrier's FTB posts are nothing more that blatant advertisements for his books.

Quote:

August 17, 2012 at 9:49 am Richard Carrier.

My latest book Proving History: Bayes’s Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus is now available for kindle. It should come available for nook soon (and possibly other formats, whatever past Prometheus titles have come available in: e.g. check The Christian Delusion in any format, and if it’s available there, Proving History will be, too).

There is a link to Amazon to buy the book. The post before that on Carrier's blog:

Quote:

Recording Audio Books

August 15, 2012 at 9:32 am Richard Carrier

Pitchstone has contracted to produce and publish audio versions of my books, and that means I will be in a professional studio recording them for the next two weeks.

Looks like he's already set up to cash in on Atheism Plus ^TM.

[16.5]

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

Looks like he's already set up to cash in on Atheism Plus ^TM.

Lulz, he certainly left the professional studio quite quickly when there was a new movement to splash his name over and a poorly written manifesto to be drafted.

Signed

A CHUD

[Kahalachan]

Originally Posted by franklinveaux

Wow, seriously? For reals? How can anyone not read that Twitter account and see that it's parody? (In particular, it's a meanspirited parody of some of the ideas of third-wave feminism; that's why the Twitter account makes specific and frequent mention of "third-wave atheism." It even says so in the Twitter description.)

Folks....it's parody. It doesn't rise to the level of humor of the Landover Baptist Church Web site, and it's certainly nowhere near The Onion, but it's parody. It's not serious. Not a word of it. It's a reaction against complaints that the skeptic and atheist community is misogynistic, which deliberately borrows language from Third Wave feminism to attack people who complain about misogyny in the atheist community.

I happen to think it's poorly done; I do believe that the atheist and skeptic communities really do have a problem with misogyny. Obviously, the person or persons responsible for the Atheism+ Twitter feed disagree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

Most of us couldn't tell. Seeing as to how the Rational Response Squad was just as dogmatic.

Also I didn't have the background info on this 3rd wave of feminism. Is this the dumb skepchick thing? Hah the irony of her actually commenting on this.

But in context it makes sense now.

[Ocelot]

Originally Posted by franklinveaux

Wow, seriously? For reals? How can anyone not read that Twitter account and see that it's parody? (In particular, it's a meanspirited parody of some of the ideas of third-wave feminism; that's why the Twitter account makes specific and frequent mention of "third-wave atheism." It even says so in the Twitter description.)

Well the blog post that sparked this whole nascent movement is called How I Unwittingly Infiltrated the Boy’s Club & Why It’s Time for a New Wave of Atheism and the author specifically states a link to the waves of feminism: "It’s time for a new wave of atheism, just like there were different waves of feminism." so that's not really the give away you suggest.

The difficulty is not recognising that the AtheismPlus twitter feed is a little over the top. The problem is that in the context of ubiquitous hyperbole we can't conclude from something being a little overblown, that it can't have been uttered in all seriousness.

Also when I wrote the comment you're quoting on, the account had made only a dozen or so tweets. Some of the ripsnorters came later and did indeed settle the matter for me as did some of the later edits to the bio.

So that's why I didn't get that it was a parody account as easily as you did. The clues you saw weren't there when I wrote what you're commenting on. As you can see from my later post I did indeed come to the conclusion that it was a parody some time before you posted.

Originally Posted by franklinveaux

Folks....it's parody. It doesn't rise to the level of humor of the Landover Baptist Church Web site, and it's certainly nowhere near The Onion, but it's parody. It's not serious. Not a word of it.

Goodness knows there's not much humour there. The mickey taking has been subtle enough to brand it as a sneaky attack on the nascent atheism plus movement. Though now it appears to have revealed its a little more of its true nature.

Originally Posted by franklinveaux

It's a reaction against complaints that the skeptic and atheist community is misogynistic, which deliberately borrows language from Third Wave feminism to attack people who complain about misogyny in the atheist community.

Ah, no you've missed something here. That part of it is real. It all stems to this blogpost from Jen McCreight of boobquake fame.

Originally Posted by franklinveaux

I happen to think it's poorly done; I do believe that the atheist and skeptic communities really do have a problem with misogyny. Obviously, the person or persons responsible for the Atheism+ Twitter feed disagree.

Maybe that's the case, maybe they just don't like women, maybe they have no grudge against women in general but have a problem with feminism. Maybe they have no problem with feminism in general but have a problem with a particular clique of feminists. And if the last were the case and that clique were to brand and questioning of their group as misogyny and insult and shun and disengage from rational argument with such "CHUDs" How many would be cowed into not pointing out the obvious non sequitur for fear of similar treatment themselves.

I have no argument with equal rights for all, though I hesitate to call myself a feminist as I'm not familiar enough with the in-crowd vocabulary to even understand the label. I've even begin to suspect that it means different things to different self described feminists.

I do think this critical thinking movement has a general problem with nastiness, arrogance and dismissive insulting attitudes. Phil Plait's "don't be a dick" talk sums that up. Misogyny overlaps with that nastiness but should not be subsumed by it. Misogyny has it's own special characteristics and the fight against it requires its own measures. However that doesn't mean that the fight is immune to its own brand of nastiness. It may be that this twitter account shares my own opinion that the fight against misogyny is just but objects to certain characteristics of those who openly disagree with Phil Plait's clarion call.

Of course passing off tweets of straw as coming from within a movement is pretty dickish itself so that's probably not the case yet I suggest it as food for thought.

[Mister Agenda]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

I say, as soon as we see A+ pins the rest of us start wearing CHUD pins. I mean, in the USA how many of our national symbols started as insults?

I have to say, I like it, but what does that say about me?

[Mister Agenda]

Originally Posted by shawmutt

The White Man's Burden

Yah, one of the few upsides of being in a minority is the moral highground over the majority no matter what they do, except become an ex-majority, which will take another fifty years or so, and another fifty for the majority stigma to fade.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Merton

And everyone knows that splats (*) are more inclusive than pluses (+) anyway.

[/REGEX JOKE]

It's an asterisk, douchebag*



* A term of endearment signifying a likeminded approach to everything we don't differ on.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Mister Agenda

I have to say, I like it, but what does that say about me?

That you're one of us baby-hating, rape-loving, puppy-boiling folks that do completely and totally irrational things like talk to people who might disagree with you and actually present yourself with a sense of decorum and civility?

Originally Posted by Ocelot

I have no argument with equal rights for all, though I hesitate to call myself a feminist as I'm not familiar enough with the in-crowd vocabulary to even understand the label. I've even begin to suspect that it means different things to different self described feminists.

My older sister spent some time as a feminist. Basically, as I understood it the definition of feminism was twofold: 1) anyone who didn't think women should be barefoot and pregnant, mere vessles for the man's seed, was a feminist; and 2) anyone who didn't think that men should be punished is not a feminist (bonus points if you think they're inherently evil). Discussions got heated when I pointed out that those two groups don't overlap. If my experiences at college are any indication, the movement leans more towards the "men must be punished" side and less towards the "women are equals" side anymore. I've heard far too many self-described feminists argue, in all seriousness, that since women were considered subservient to men for so long, it's only right that men should be subservient to women for an equal period of time. Many argue that it would be unjust for us NOT to subjugate men under women. I've even heard it argued that ALL heterosexual sex is rape--that there's no possibility for women to actually willingly consent to sex. That's insulting to EVERYONE.

I'm all for equality. I don't care what color you are, what gender, what sex, what sexual orientation, any of it--so long as you don't violate anyone's rights, do whatever you want. But feminism contains far too many crazies for me to associate myself with them.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Mister Agenda

Yah, one of the few upsides of being in a minority is the moral highground over the majority no matter what they do, except become an ex-majority, which will take another fifty years or so, and another fifty for the majority stigma to fade.

If only all of us minority groups could learn to work and band together we could overthrow the majority, the Chinese. We out number them six to one!!