Let me throw out a hypothetical example. If I came into a discussion board, made a nice progressive intelligent statement (like, say, the Catholic Church hates women and here are 30 reasons why), and then ended my post with “Catholic priests all worship the Devil”, what would happen?

Wouldn’t at least one person there wonder why I accused priests of being satanic? Should I get a free pass for my stupid statement at the end because the rest of my post was valid?

I don’t know the answer to any of these questions, but I personally think that saying something questionable at the end of an otherwise valid speech is worthy of questioning. I’m sorry that your taking offense at my questioning occurred, and I hope that your deeming of me as an asshole has helped you work through your anger at the sexism you see in atheists.

I’m also sorry that you did not take the opportunity to notice that the reason I was offended was because you called atheists sexists. It didn’t seem that difficult of a concept to grasp, but you completely decided to ignore it, while pretending as if I didn’t get your point. I don’t understand the point of posting on a forum and then purposely ignoring feedback. Maybe I’m just an asshole like that.

This presentation is good, but employs sexist terminology. I pointed that out. I

Sorry you took offense. That says more about you than about the rightness or wrongness of what I said. Life’s too short to deal with assholes. You are an asshole. So I won’t deal with you.

Cheers.

I pointed out that this particular thing, whatever else its merits, was sexist.

Right, and then you said the part that I raised issue with,

Sadly, it seems even atheists can be sexists.

…I threw out two guesses on why you wrote this: that you thought the presentation’s makers were atheists, or that Hemant was sexist. Since neither of those were true, was your comment a non sequitur? If so, I’ll end this paragraph with one too: Sadly, it seems even atheists can be puppy-kickers.

I too think it is disturbing when anthropology or other studies of prehistoric peoples are male-centric. Unless a fossil is of a male (which sometimes can be told from cranial morphology), then its stupid to call something “Neanderthal man”. I don’t think of this as active sexism, i.e., I don’t think that referring to “ancient man” keeps women out of anthropology. I seems to me to be more pervasive, passive sexism, wherein human accomplishments (such as migration) are just assumed to be done by males.

Now, the next time we have a discussion about the “Out of Africa” theory… we have a great resource!

I’m not.

“…or that, by linking to this movie, that Hemant is passively supporting the marginalization of women? ”

I didn’t.

I pointed out that this particular thing, whatever else its merits, was sexist.

You are implying all sorts of things I didn’t say.

Sadly, it seems even atheists can be sexists.

Why assume that the people who made the movie are atheists?

…or that, by linking to this movie, that Hemant is passively supporting the marginalization of women?

1. The title “Journey of Mankind” – should have been “Journey of Humankind.”

2. The representative picture on the intro–male, of course. Why not a man and a woman?

3. Reference to Neanderthals as “neanderthal man.” Presumably to avoid the problem of referring to them as “human”? (Why not just Neanderthals then?)

These are not quibbles. I’m tired of seeing women marginalized. Man is not the measure of all things. Sexism is not scientific. Sadly, it seems even atheists can be sexists.