Hustler Magazine Rails Against Conservative Atheist S.E. Cupp… with a Photoshopped Phallus

This past week, adult magazine Hustler (published by Larry Flynt) printed a photoshopped picture of S.E. Cupp, a conservative female pundit (who also happens to be an atheist), looking like she’s performing oral sex, with the headline “What Would S.E. Cupp Look Like with a Dick in Her Mouth?”

Image via The Blaze

Here’s what the accompanying article had to say (emphasis mine):

“S.E. Cupp is a lovely young lady who read too much Ayn Rand in high school and ended up joining the dark side. Cupp, an author and media commentator who often shows up on Fox News programs, is undeniably cute. But her hotness is diminished when she espouses dumb ideas like defunding Planned Parenthood. Perhaps the method pictured here is Ms. Cupp’s suggestion for avoiding an unwanted pregnancy.”

Oh, and it also comes with a disclaimer:

“No such picture of S.E. Cupp actually exists. This composite fantasy picture is altered from the original for our imagination, does not depict reality and is not to be taken seriously for any purpose.”

Using a woman’s sexuality to attack her integrity is sexism at its finest. Sure, S.E. Cupp is a proponent of defunding Planned Parenthood (and her book isn’t going to earn her many atheist fans), but this image has nothing to do with her political beliefs and everything to do with the fact that she is an outspoken woman. Half-hearted disclaimer or not, this kind of behavior is despicable, even if it does come from Hustler.

Do candid conservative male pundits have to put up with this kind of abuse? I think not. Women who raise their voices in the public sphere should not have to be afraid of being objectified as a punishment. If you have an issue with what they say, talk about their arguments, not their looks.

About Lauren Lane

Lauren Lane is the co-founder of Skepticon, the Midwest's largest skeptic student-run conference and remains a lead organizer today. She has not one, but TWO fancy art degrees and is not afraid to use them.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Dionne/100000122058172 David Dionne

    For Hustler to frame this as some kind of political commentary is truly abhorrent.  Considering the source, though, should we really be surprised?  

    • LeftSidePositive

      We’re not surprised, we’re pointing out that this type of sexualized marginalization has very harmful repercussions on society at large.  A harmful cultural trope doesn’t have to be “new” or “surprising” to be in need of criticism and cultural examination.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Reed/692599362 Paul Reed

    It looks like the whole point of the “article” is a an excuse to publish fake sexual images of good looking women. Any philosophical or political issues, and indeed who the woman is, seems to be a secondary concern.

    • IndyFitz

       No, the purpose was social satire and commentary.  If you don’t get that, maybe you shouldn’t read Hustler.  Or read blog posts that have NOTHING TO DO WITH ATHEISM on an atheist-centric blog.  It’s nice to jump on the “don’t objectify women” bandwagon, isn’t it?  This is Hustler.  It’s what Hustler has done for years.  Come on, people.  With all the important topics relating to atheism, are we REALLY pissing time away on this?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6OE7LEYELE4MZTVXGZUSVTBFUI julie

        The “don’t objectify women” bandwagon?? Is there something wrong with any sort of “treat people respectfully” bandwagon?
        It’s totally alright if it a magazine is sexist because that’s what they do! They’ve been sexist for years!

        • IndyFitz

           That’s my point.  So why is ANYONE surprised?

          It’s a bandwagon when people are jumping on it just for the sake of being holier than thou and accusing people of being misogynists.  Really, I can repeat this all day.  Just because someone questions the validity of posting something about one topic in a blog allegedly focused on another topic doesn’t make one a hater of the posted topic.  It’s ridiculous to insinuate that.  But those who have come in here accusing and pointing fingers are insinuating just that.  The amusing part is when the religious people do it — Xianity being one of the biggest all-time supporters of stomping on the rights of women.

          • LeftSidePositive

            No, it’s not “just because” people question the validity of the posting–it’s when women say why they think it’s relevant, they are belittled, mocked, told to pose nude, accused of being mentally ill, ignored with “did you say something?”, shut down with gendered insults, and then accused of misandry when they stand up to the horrible behavior you’re dishing out at them. Moreover, it fits into a much larger pattern of women’s issues being sidelined, and we feel this is unacceptable.

            It’s ESPECIALLY fucking annoying when you pull out the “Xtianity…stomping on the rights of women” card as a classic Tu Toque fallacy, when the women you’ve been ignoring have been pointing out that THE REASON it is necessary to care about feminism on an atheist blog (apart from combating sexist asshats like you) is that sexist attitudes represent a major harm perpetuated by religion in our culture, and are therefore of critical interest to those committed to eradicating the harms of religion.

            • Fsq

              Someone went to the Webster’s Store last night and got herself a great big bag of bulk nouns and adjectives…

              • LeftSidePositive

                Someone is pathologically unable to understand or acknowledge substantive criticisms made by a woman.

              • Coyotenose

                 Someone going by the handle Fsq is a passive-aggressive crybaby who can’t handle an actual argument.

          • amycas

             “Just because someone questions the validity of posting something about
            one topic in a blog allegedly focused on another topic doesn’t make one a
            hater of the posted topic”

            I don’t know you. I don’t know how often you read this blog or read the comments. I suspect the reason you’re labeled a “hater” for questioning the “validity” (maybe the word should be relevance) of this post is because lately, the only posts whose relevance is questioned are ones related to women’s issues or feminism. Also, it’s Hemant’s blog, he can start posting only kitten pictures if he wants.

  • Venture Free

    Cue all the Fox News stories about how NO liberal ANYWHERE will condemn this despicable image.

  • Daniel Schealler

    Way to keep it classy, Hustler.

    • IndyFitz

       Daniel, seriously?  Clearly, you don’t read Hustler, have never read Hustler, or you’d have a clue that Hustler has NEVER claimed to be classy, never acted classy, and always done things like this.  Again, I say, this topic is f*cking pointless here.  How about we get to atheist business and leave the feminist whinings for other blogs?

      • Fsq

        Hell, I havent read a Hustler in years, but after this pile of steaming nonsense, I think I may go down to the 7-11 and grab several copies, just because I can.

        • http://www.facebook.com/ellenbeth EllenBeth Wachs

           Right, because everyone knows you buy Hustler to READ it for the articles.  Do you need emoticons to feel the snark?

          • Fsq

            Well, to be fare, it is hard to read when the pages are stuck together…

            EMOTICON.

            • http://www.facebook.com/ellenbeth EllenBeth Wachs

              You might want to start. The word would be “fair”

            • Coyotenose

              Okay, that whole post was Win.

      • LeftSidePositive

        This isn’t about being “classy,” this is about using sex to denigrate women.  If you think that’s okay, you need to seriously rethink your values.

        • IndyFitz

           You continue to miss the point. This isn’t about the discussion as to whether sex denigrates women.  It’s about this post having no point on an atheist blog.  That’s the discussion.  Pay attention.  There’ll be a quiz on this later.

          And, like many here, you are twisting my words to fit your desires.  I never said it was classy.  I said Hustler never CLAIMED to be classy.  How do you turn that into me saying it’s classy?  Do you TRY?  Or does it just come naturally?  And if we’re talking about how Hustler uses sex to denigrate women, exactly what are you referring to?  Are you referring to the women who take money of their own free will, and pose of their own free will, perhaps with multiple phalluses in multiple orifices?  Or of the women who take money and pose with semen on their faces?  Or the women who are 69ing with each other?  Are you saying all that denigrates women?  I’d say the women in question don’t seem too denigrated, since they volunteered, did it of their own accord, weren’t forced, and took money for it.

          Yet… you claim that *I* think it’s classy and thus I denigrate women and need my morals examined?  That’s pretty ballsy from someone who A) Didn’t read my post in the first place and B) Twisted it into whatever you wanted.

          I’d say if naked women involved in sex acts in magazines is denigrating to women, I suggest you start talking to those women and letting them know how they’re hurting their gender, and not putting the blame on someone you don’t know simply because I argued that this post was out of place on a blog about atheism.

          You… you DO know that this is what this whole debate is about, right?  Or did you just scroll down, randomly find a post you didn’t like, and decided to fire off accusations without any basis?  No, noooo, you certainly would NEVER have done that.

          Read the sarcasm there.  Come back when you’ve read these posts and actually know what you’re talking about.

          • LeftSidePositive

            I never said that you claimed Hustler was classy.  Learn to fucking read.  I said that acting like the issue with Hustler was “classiness” is a huge distraction, and devalues treating people with respect to being just a matter of taste.

            Moreover, you are a fucking idiot if you think the issue is just about women being naked in magazines.  The issue is that a woman is being humiliated via Photoshop for having an outspoken point of view (even though I find SE Cupp abhorrent, I would mock the actual flaws in her arguments, not speculate about her sexuality), and sex is used by this magazine as a means of making her seem expendable, stupid and unimportant.  It’s saying that sex cheapens women, and that women who are sexually active are not worth listening to or respecting. This in no way means that any sexually explicit material in a magazine must be degrading, it is saying that this particular magazine is doing it, and involving a woman in their sexual display without her consent.Furthermore, vilification and denigration for women being sexual is hugely based in religion, just like anti-gay prejudice is based in religion, and just like “intelligent design” is based in religion.  So it is ENTIRELY relevant to the atheist movement and our values to look at how the religious remnants of our culture affect women.  The very fact that you think feminism is “whining” shows how deeply entrenched these anti-women attitudes are, and why it is VITALLY necessary for the atheist movement to look critically at its prejudices about women.

            • Fsq

              You get all that from a phtoshopped dick in the mouth?

              Jesus Titty Fucking Christ, I REALLY want to be around you to get your take on Lucy, the football, and Charlie Brown. That sounds like it would become one hell of a treatise on how Lucy represents estrogen in flow, the ball is a mock up of the collective penii of the world, and Charlie Brown is your father….

              • LeftSidePositive

                You think it’s hard to understand why Photoshopping a dick into a woman’s mouth as a means of ridicule shows hostility to sexually active women? You think it’s hard to understand why using sex to ridicule women is grounded in misogyny?  Wow, you’re even more idiotic than I realized.

                • Fsq

                  Could you give me about 500 words on “Family Circus” and “Andy Capp” by tomorrow. I would love to hear your thoughts.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  It’s assholes like you who make speaking out against sexism necessary.

                • IndyFitz

                   Hey, now THAT is man-hating miandrist behavior!

                • LeftSidePositive

                  No, you miserable fucking idiot, the asshole above was criticized for minimizing women’s concerns and acting like an INCREDIBLY obvious message in the Hustler article was sooo obscure that we little wimminz must be reading too much into it.  This is a sexist way to ignore women’s concerns, and it’s also gaslighting: trying to convince the person you’re trying to silence that reality is different than it is, and that they can’t possibly be right in their very well-supported interpretation.

                  YET AGAIN, it is plainly obvious to anyone who is not a willfully imbecilic lout that I’m criticizing HARMFUL SEXIST BEHAVIOR, not the simple state of being male.

                  Also, have you noticed that all these blanket accusations of misandry haven’t exactly stopped me in my tracks?  Have you noticed that they have actually been LUDICROUSLY easy to answer?  So why do you keep doing it? Do you somehow think, well, maybe the 25th time I erroneously call her a misandrist she’ll be totally stumped!

                • amycas

                   She called fsq an asshole, that has nothing to do with whether or not xe is a man.

            • IndyFitz

               I’m sorry, did you say something?  I haven’t been paying much attention since you’re just continuing to reload the same crap and call people names.  You need a new song.

              • LeftSidePositive

                Thank you for so brilliantly illustrating this:

                http://freethoughtblogs.com/xblog/files/2012/05/74549_10150307457860650_566685649_15896668_1887674_n1.jpg

                Thank you for also being as juvenile as possible in admitting you have no sound argument.

                • IndyFitz

                   You’re welcome.  I decided to begin responding to people in the same way they’ve been behaving.  It seems the best way to communicate.  Plus, you sound like a man-hating misandrist.  And the cartoon you linked to shows that you’re not only a misandrist but a misogynist — what with all those faceless people with MALE and FEMALE symbols marking their facelessness!  Clearly, that is just objectifying BOTH genders.  Holy crap… that makes you a MISANTHROPE!

                  This does NOT change my love for you.  I am willing to help you however I can.  Just let me know what I can do to help.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  So, I comprehensively answer all of your points and eviscerate your worldview and you respond with “I’m sorry, did you say something?” Yeah, that totally seems like you’re responding in kind.

                  Do you really think flinging “misandrist” around over and over again is going to have any effect? It was bullshit the first time you said it, it was bullshit the last fifteen times I’ve refuted it, and it’s bullshit now.

                  If you had ANY understanding of textuality you would understand that the cartoon is making a statement about socialized interpretations of gender roles, and how the SEXIST in the cartoon perceives gender.  But, of course, you don’t, and you’re just throwing a really lame Tu Quoque.

                  Also, you’re evidently way too ignorant to understand what “objectify” means.  Do some background reading and don’t fucking bother us.

          • amycas

             It’s Hemant’s blog, he can post whatever he wants to post on it. Also, it’s been explained over and over and over again why feminism is an atheist issue. It’s an atheist issue for the same reasons that racism and lgbt phobia is an atheist issue–because they’re people and they deserve respect. It’s not a difficult concept.

      • amycas

         I have no problem with porn mags, such as Playboy or Hustler, when they publish photos of women who pose nude or in sexually suggestive positions–they got paid and they did it of their own volition. I have a problem when the photoshop a woman into these types of positions and scenarios for the mere act of speaking their mind (even if I disagree with the woman in question). Do you not see the difference here?

      • Daniel Schealler

        Really?

        Gosh.

        I had no idea!

  • Jess

    Besides a brief mention that she is an atheist, I don’t feel like this article is relevant to this blog at all. If I wanted to sign up to a feminist blog, I would do so. Please keep things focussed.

    • JamesM

      Guess what? You signed up for a feminist atheism blog.

      • Jess

        Sure didn’t feel like that until recently.

        • Aljaž Kozina

          I know, right?

        • JamesM

          This must all be very hard on you.

          • Jess

            Thanks, man. I’m learning to cope.

      • ErickaMJohnson

         I thought it was a humanist atheist blog.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jason-Myers/1384246679 Jason Myers

          The difference being?

          • ErickaMJohnson

             None, that’s my point. If you’re a humanist, you’re also a feminist.

            • Fsq

              Nope. Wrong.

              • LeftSidePositive

                On recent threads on this topic, you’ve shown a callousness toward your fellow human beings (the female ones) and their rights to be treated as people, which pretty much means you fail at being a humanist.

                Humanism is about treating all people with integrity, compassion, rationality and pro-social ethics. Feminism is about identifying the multitude of ways particular humans (women) are not in fact treated with integrity or compassion, are the victims of irrational prejudice and fear, and are the victims of exploitive policies and anti-social acts.  If you do not care about humanist values and ethics as they apply to half the population, you are by definition not humanist.

                • Fsq

                  All feminists are not humanists. It stands not all humanists are feminists.

                  You dinks simply cannot master reading comprehension or skills. You start pulling out the misogynist scalpels left and right, but all indiginant when someone dare to say sometng other than that agenda. If uou go and read, you see I have not said I am anti-woman or even anti-feminist.

                  What I have said was that the feminist movement active,y tries to co-opt the secular and atheist movement as there own. It is not.

                  Go back and learn how to read for fuck’s sake.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  It is irrelevant whether or not you have SAID you are anti-woman or anti-feminist, you have SHOWN that you are anti-woman and anti-feminist by how you have treated women on this thread, and how you have denigrated women’s concerns and our relevance.

                  Any feminist who fails at being a humanist also fails at being a feminist…they exist, like the transphobic radfems, but they really are terrible people and they are not upholding the ideals they think they are.  I respond to such people with the utmost scorn, and state that they are claiming the feminist label presumptively.

                  No, all humanists MUST be feminists, otherwise they fail at being humanists, because feminist values are ESSENTIAL for humanist values–respect, equality, freedom from church interference in our private lives, autonomy, dignity, etc. Anyone who does not value those things for everyone–including women, is claiming the humanist label presumptively.

                  And anyone who doesn’t think feminist values are vital to the success of atheism and secularism is a narrow-minded, self-entitled, privileged fool.

                • Fsq

                  Why do I have this vision of you as an angry 19 year old college kid, furiously tyoing away, with flecks of spittle flying out of the corner of the mouth.

                  You act like you have no real world experience and have the fire and anger reserved for the young and stupid. But by all means, if I am wrong in that, please correct me.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  This from the person who has flung HOW MANY gender based slurs at me in the last ten or so comments?

                  Anyone who pulls shit like that CANNOT POSSIBLY be a humanist in any meaningful sense, any more than I am an astronaut.And, even now, I’m being outspoken and you’re fucking OBSESSED with minimizing my statements on the importance of feminism and de-legitimizing my anger at you.  Well, fuck that, it’s sexism 101.I have plenty of real-world experience, and that is why your play-dumb-and-I’m-just-joking act is so pathetically transparent.

                • Fsq

                  So are you flying for Branson then, or are you in the government sector and flying for NASA?

                • amycas

                  Because you want to find some other way to belittle her in your own mind to make yourself feel better about not responding to her well-written and well-though-out responses.

                • Coyotenose

                   You have this vision because you made it up to cover up for not having an argument and being a child.

                • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

                  All feminists are not humanists. It stands not all humanists are feminists.

                  I hope you’re not implying that the second sentence follows from the first, as it would be a grave logical error to do so. (Consider the parallel argument: “All mammals are not cats; therefore, not all cats are mammals.”)

                • amycas

                   It’s true not all humanists would self-identify as a feminist, but feminism is the belief that women are people and should be treated as such. I would argue that if you believe that, then you are, by definition, a feminist. It’s like how there are people who don’t self-identify as atheists, but will say they don’t believe in any gods. They are atheists by definition, they just don’t label themselves as such.

                • Coyotenose

                  “All feminists are not humanists. It stands not all humanists are feminists.”

                  No, it doesn’t. Go back and learn how to read for fuck’s sake.

              • amycas

                Feminism is the belief that women are people and should be treated as such. If women are humans and she be treated as humans, then clearly humanism is an umbrella term that would encompass feminism.

    • Snarkytattooedheathen

      What do you have against feminist?

      • http://profiles.google.com/nathanlee2 nathan lee

        I have nothing “against feminist”, but that doesn’t mean we all want to look at a blog specifically about freindly atheism, and see it cluttered with posts about how hustler horribly objectifies women.

        Edit: I read this blog a LOT less often since this clutter has been going on.

        • Alessia L.

          Didn’t realize feminism was “clutter”.

          That being said, as a feminist, I’m not offended by pic. It’s Hustler. Kind of par for the course, no?

          • IndyFitz

             It IS clutter.  It has nothing to do with friendly atheism, except that the subject of this particular Hustler bit is an atheist.  But you are so right — this is indeed par for the course for Hustler.  But it isn’t enough for reasonable atheists just not reading it if it doesn’t appeal to them — instead, they’re POSTING ABOUT IT in an atheist forum where it has no bearing.  This truly staggers me.  Hemant, seriously… where the hell is the editorial leash these days?  Maybe you should start a “Friendly Feminist” blog and move this stuff over here.

            • Jess

              Amen.

              Though maybe we should rethink the friendly part, too? 

              • IndyFitz

                 I agree.

            • LeftSidePositive

              Just because it’s “par for the course for Hustler” does NOT make it okay.  It is indicative of deeper misogynistic problems in our society (which stem, largely, from religion).

              • IndyFitz

                 “Okay” is up to the individual, you know, not what you decree it to be.  I think Hustler exercising free expression through satire is just fine. If it offends some, tough; if it offends me, tough.  You can’t put rules on it.

                I think women engaging in sexual acts in Hustler or in films is entirely fine, so long as those women aren’t coerced in any way.  If they make the choice, and get paid for it, how am I the bad guy for enjoying it?  I didn’t make her do it.  Radical feminists seem to want to make it all the fault of so-called misogynistic men for what women choose to do, yet claim women don’t need to be protected.  From what?  From themselves?  They can’t be trusted to make decisions for themselves?

                On the one hand, if women choose to engage in sexual activities for Hustler for pay, it’s baaaaaaaad.  They can’t be trusted to make decisions about their sexuality, their bodies, etc.  How can anyone hold that believe and keep a straight face when they argue that women should have the right to control their bodies when it comes to abortions?

                Just because YOU find something immoral or bad doesn’t mean it is.  And you can’t legislate morality.  Good thing, or we’d all be forced to accept Jesus as our lord and honor the Sabbath and follow some god and other silliness.

                And, by the way, did I mention… this isn’t even ABOUT feminist arguments.  That’s the whole debate.  The debate is that, if you’d read the original post and the original opposition here, you’d see it has nothing to do with hating women, nothing to do with immorality, nothing to do with any of that.  It’s about whether this post has any business on an atheist blog, since the topic has nothing at all to do with atheism except the tenuous connections that Cupp is a supposed atheist. Laura Lane, the posted, didn’t posit anything about that, though.  She clearly posted a piece about the evils of Hustler.  Fine.  Some may think Hustler is.  But that isn’t what this blog is supposed to be about.

                Really, try actually reading everything here and not picking and choosing things to lash out at people over.  As I said, quiz later.  Pay attention.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  “Okay” is a matter of discussion and debate, and is about setting pro-social norms.

                  No one’s talking about “making rules” so you can drop that red herring.  This is just about open dialogue and criticism in the marketplace of ideas.

                  This is not about any type of sexually explicit content, and if you can’t tell the difference between sex-positive explicit content, and content that denigrates women, then you are a fucking douche.  If you enjoy sexually explicit content that is INHERENTLY INTERTWINED with treating women like second-class citizens due to their sexuality, that sex should make their opinions irrelevant, that women who are sexual beings should be the subject of mockery and scorn, then yes in fact it DOES make you a bad person for enjoying it, because those are AWFUL “values.”

                  Moreover, this isn’t about “morality” in the sex-is-bad sense, because this is not about the existence of sexually-explicit material, this is about what this material is ALSO saying about women IN ADDITION to its graphic nature.  The fact that you don’t seem to be able to make this distinction shows you SERIOUSLY fucking fail at understanding the basics of feminism, so maybe you should stop complaining when it comes up, and start learning something.

                  And, this is not about “legislating” morality, so you can drop that fucking strawman right there. This is about discussion and cultural analysis, NOT using the force of law to silence anyone, so you can give up the pathetic persecution complex.

                  Women can have awful sexual politics too.  I’m not saying they can’t make their own choices, and I’m not saying they need to be protected from their choices, I’m just saying that I disagree with them and why.

                  HOWEVER, this is NOT a case of someone who is choosing to be in Hustler.  This is about Hustler putting someone in their magazine to humiliate her (yes, she’s an asshole, but for reasons entirely unconnected to being a woman or being good-looking).

                  Furthermore, sexism is a HUGE problem in the atheist movement right now, and your extraordinary resistance to hearing about women’s issues, and the amazing hostility and condescension you are showing towards women is EXTREMELY good evidence for why we need even more discussion of misogynistic attitudes in our larger culture and in the atheist movement in particular.

                • Fsq

                  Jesus Vagina-Sniffing Christ!!!

                  No one is trying to make up rules?

                  Go back and read almost everyone of your posts. Every sentence is a dictate and rule you try and command over us lowly stinking-masses.

                  You are out there girlfriend….I mean Pluto out there…

                • LeftSidePositive

                  Are you actually so stupid that you don’t understand the difference between “rules,” meaning “standards of socially-appropriate behavior as determined by culture, consensus, and mutual respect” and “rules,” meaning “things the FCC will shut you down for if you don’t abide by them”??

                  They’re different, you fucking idiot.

                  Oh, and it’s also not socially acceptable to demean women’s opinions by calling them “girlfriend.”  Of course, there is no hierarchically enforced “rule” (oooh, look, words can have multiple meanings that depend on an intelligent interpretation of context!!!) that says you can’t do this, just the basic expectation of decency toward your fellow human beings, which you are free to ignore, and we are free to point out what an asshole you are when you do.

                • Fsq

                  The reason we do not follow your commands is because, honestly, I cant even read your posts. If you took the time to calm down, tone it down and write out your thoughts and arguments cohently and coherently and without your vitriol and side tracking diatribes, you just might get taken seriously.

                  As it is, you are just a fucking whackadoo. And it has nothing to do with you being a woman. It has everything to do with you being an ass.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  If you cannot read my posts, you are a fucking idiot.  Why is it that everyone else can seem to read them and many have “liked” them?  Might it be a problem with your comprehension? Might you have female-induced-selective-alexia?

                  Telling me to tone it down is tone trolling, and you can cut that shit out right the fuck now.

                  “Cohently” isn’t even a word, dumbshit. Don’t preach about taking the time to write more thoughtfully when you can’t even be bothered to notice which keys you’re pressing!

                  Considering I have consistently pointed out the systemic misogyny in your comments, and you have just resorted to gender-based slurs and taunts about speculation into my mental health status, I seriously doubt I’m the one who needs to present my arguments more logically.  But great job embodying the patriarchal assumption that men are always more logical and coherent…

                  By the way, what you’re doing is gaslighting, and it’s not okay. You are trying to deny reality that I AM arguing consistently and accurately, and you’re just willfully denying this as a manipulative means to induce self-doubt.  Well, I’m not fucking falling for that shit, asshole.

                  You know what?  I’m used to sexist jerkwads like you not taking me seriously.  It’s not because I don’t have a lot of valuable insights to contribute to the discussion, it’s because they’re sexist jerkwads.

                  How many fucking times do I have to tell you that making disparaging comments about the mental health of women you disagree with is sexist?  FUCK OFF ALREADY. It wasn’t clever 100 comments ago and it sure as fuck isn’t clever now.

                  So, you spew out reams of gender-based slurs, malign my mental health, ignore my arguments, and repeat the same tired horseshit over and over again, and yet you insist I am an ass? How does that even fucking make sense in your head?

                  And great job trying to pull the “it has nothing to do with me being a woman.”  Really, the fact that you have called me fish-pants, the fact that you have accused me of being irrational due to PMS, the fact that you have told me to pose naked, the fact that you have told me I’m “cute” when I speak up for myself, the fact that you have told me my worth depends on performing domestic activities that please men, and the fact that you dismiss multiple women on this thread with demeaning terms like “hen,” “sweetheart,” and “girlfriend” has nothing to do with me being a woman? I find that fucking unlikely, dumbass.

                • http://www.facebook.com/ellenbeth EllenBeth Wachs

                  I have to say, I am thoroughly enjoying the ass-whupping you are giving him. It is deserved.  I am saving all of your comments for future use when the need arises as I have no doubt it will.   I hope you don’t mind ;)

                • LeftSidePositive

                  Please feel free!  FSM knows the troll himself isn’t persuadable, I respond to him only to diminish his sense of entitlement, to set a social norm that his misogyny is unacceptable and will be confronted, and as a public education service as to what patterns misogyny employs and why it needs to be called out (and to model strategies for the calling-out!).

                  Basically, everything Greta Christina ever said about arguing in public applies here.

                  I hope my comments are helpful.

                • http://www.facebook.com/ellenbeth EllenBeth Wachs

                   Thanks. They are very helpful.  I am also well aware this isn’t being done to try to persuade the ass. He is beyond help.

                • amycas

                   You, of all people, are telling somebody to calm donwn and tone down the vitriol? Her posts are incredibly cogent and coherent. I think you’re just having a problem because you’re not used to having to deal with women having opinions.

                • amycas

                   No rules, criticisms. This is like when we criticize a religious person for saying something hateful and they try to claim “free speech” as a defense. Criticism does not equal rules or laws. They have the freedom to publish, and we have the freedom to criticize.

                • IndyFitz

                   I’m sorry, did you just say something?  Your well-thought-out responses tend to get lost when you lace them with insults and name calling.  But it’s clear you must know everything and everyone should do it however you tell them to do it.  Only your opinion counts.  Big smiley face here.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  If you’re too stupid to understand an argument when it is well-punctuated with profanity, that is your problem and not mine.

                  George Carlin and The Daily Show must be soooo taxing for you, pooor widdiw thing!!

                  And great job whining “only your opinion counts” when you present no cogent argument whatsoever as to why my opinion might be mistaken.

                  Btw, this “did you say something” refrain is totally NOT AT ALL based in our cultural preference to ignore women. Nope. Not at all. Nothing to see here, folks.

                • IndyFitz

                   It has nothing to do with ignoring a woman.  It has to do with ignoring someone who has nothing to say except for rude insults and vicious attacks.  But I still love you, and am willing to help you recover from being a misanthrope. You know, it’s women like you who turn everything someone says into SOMEHOW being misogynistic who damage to the feminist movement.  But I still love you.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  Fuck off with your “I still love you.” It’s patronizing and belittling.

                  It’s not hard to “somehow” make things misogynistic when you shut people down by calling them “sweetheart,” accuse them of being mentally ill, insist their concerns are out of place, and lots, LOTS more.

                  If you can’t tell that I have A LOT more to say than “rude insults and vicious attacks,” then yes, you are ignoring me, and you are doing it in a very gender-based way.  Firstly, to think that saying “fuck off” on an internet message board is a “vicious attack” is just plain ludicrous, and is really insulting to all the people who actually do get threatened (including threats of rape and bodily harm, and having their privacy violated) on the internet.

                  Then, why don’t you actually stop demeaning my viewpoints and ACTUALLY ANSWER what I have had to say:

                  1) This issue is very relevant to the atheist community because the use of sexual imagery to silence and demean women has highly religious undertones.

                  2) This issue is very relevant to the atheist community because it is indicative of sexist attitudes that have caused serious harm in our community.

                  3) Acting like women’s concerns are ipso facto off-topic and out-of-place perpetuates the sexist idea that men’s concerns are general and women’s concerns are secondary, and of interest only to women.

                  4) Making a joke out of something doesn’t make it cease to be sexist.

                  5) Calling something “satire” does not excuse you from the actual import of the views you are actually promoting

                  6) Using gendered language to demean women is indicative of sexism.

                  7) Demeaning and objectifying women is not the natural state of men.

                  Of course, it’s so much easier to say I haven’t said anything, even when I’ve responded to all your points in full!

                • amycas

                  Have I said lately how much I love you?

                  ps. I wanted to post this after your rebuttal to IndyFitz comment below, but it got too skinny.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  Aaawww, thanks!

                  *blush*
                  :-)

                • amycas

                  Tone trolling, don’t do it.

                • Patterrssonn

                  Ranty rant rant, you really shouldn’t let those feminist upset you so much.

                • IndyFitz

                   I worry that you are a man-hating misandrist.  But I love you and am willing to help you however I can.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  Indy really fucking loves this flinging “man-hating misandrist” around, doesn’t he?

                  I think he’s a redundancy-loving redundophile, myself…Funny, it seems to be a de novo mutation in his code, though. It just cropped up and now he’s repeating it everywhere.  (Incidentally, this repetition and amplification of a brief section of code is how Huntington’s Disease worsens over generations…coincidence? We’ll never know!)

                • Patterrssonn

                  I think it means he’s given up, maybe the weirdness of his rants is starting to bother him.

        • Onamission5

          Because why on earth would atheists want half of the population to be treated with basic decency, or to be taken seriously, or to feel safe? So cluttering.

          • Jess

            Whilst I’d like to think the desire for basic human rights are something the readers in this blog have in common, turning this into a general discussion forum along those lines means we should be blogging about other things to benefit humanity- i.e.  new medicine, alternative energy sources etc- and whilst I am passionate about such causes, I don’t necessarily think this is the best place for them. I like this blog largely because it is so focused on the stated issue at hand (with the exception of articles such as this), and whilst the equal treatment of women is very important to me (necessarily, being a woman myself), it doesn’t fit with the otherwise streamlined content of the blog.

            • JamesM

              No one ever complains when Hemant or another author blogs about something not specific to atheism (about every day). For instance, the Yeti DNA sequencing had not one complaint lodged against it for not being related to atheism. This complain ONLY happens when a feminist article appears. Then suddenly, people (really, just misogynistic jerks) complain. Your excuse is a poor one. Just admit to yourself that you hate women.

              • Jess

                Firstly, where on earth did you draw the conclusion that I hate women? I am a woman, and very proud of it.

                Secondly, I don’t know if I’m receiving a different newstream to you, but I don’t remember seeing posts this irrelevant yet. I didn’t see the yeti DNA post, but judging by the title, I think it would be of interest to people here- applying naturalistic principles to something assumed to be supernatural and mythical seems very relevant to the heart of this blog.

                Perhaps you’re right and I’ve just not seen the other irrelevant posts yet. Maybe I just don’t click on the titles I find relevant usually, but I clicked on this one because the title made it sound like her atheism mattered but actually, it had nothing to do with the article at all. And I’m sure the author knows this.

                I can’t say a whole lot about other people’s “knee jerk reactions”, but I know if I read an equally politically irrelevant piece- such as one on animal rights, which is a great passion of mine- I’d find it equally off topic and annoying in the context of this blog. As an atheist I am free from prescribed political leanings, and I’d like it to stay that way, thankyou very much.

                • Kelly

                  Being a woman doesn’t mean that you can’t be a misogynist.

                • Jess

                  How about the fact that I don’t hate women, then? 

                • Fsq

                  Nor does it mean you cant be a self righteous asshole….Kelly…meet yourself.

                • ErickaMJohnson

                   Nothing that Jess has said suggests that she’s misogynistic. It’s not fair to pull that word out so carelessly just because someone disagrees with you.

                • Jess

                  Thank you, Ericka!

              • IndyFitz

                 Yeti DNA sequencing seemed to me to be about whether this was a sane use of science and logic and reason, which atheism generally says are good things.  This post was about the poster stomping her foot and whining about objectification and how mean ol’ Larry Flynt is.  Two totally different things.  Is the atheism connection solely because she’s an atheist and we want to stomp our feet because Larry insulted us?  Or is it because she’s a conservative atheist and we don’t like her much, so we feel like we look like heroes if we get up and scorn Larry Flynt for doing this?  Are we going to act like that, now?  Get out our egos and show the world how we care even for the atheists we’d rather not have representing us?  Because that sounds a lot like Christian churches wanting them put behind electrified fences… but claiming they love them!

                Call this what it is: a feminist poster using this atheist forum as a place to shout feminist rants from the rooftops.  How is it anti-feminist?  It’s satire, it’s parody, it’s insulting, but she didn’t ACTUALLY POSE with a d*ck in her mouth.  Like virtually all porn out there when women do such things, if she did, it would have been HER CHOICE.  But it’s irrelevant, because it’s a PhotoShopped satire, clearly disclaimed, clearly the same thing Hustler has done for decades.

                • Jess

                  Glad I’m not the only one who saw this vested interest slowly creeping in over the past month or so. Should have seen this coming since the “I counted the men vs. women in this photo and they aren’t 50/50 so its’ sexist” incident.

                • amycas

                   “poster stomping her foot and whining”

                  Why is it that when a woman has something to say about how she perceives women to be mistreated, that she’s characterized as a toddler throwing a fit? Do you characterize Hemant as stomping his feet and whining when he posts about not liking something a Christian publishes about atheists?

              • ErickaMJohnson

                 This post does seem to be off topic. Just because she’s an atheist doesn’t mean it’s relevant here. Her atheism wasn’t even addressed by Hustler.

          • Faq

            No one said they shuldnt.

            What we have said is that this should not be the place for pushing a feminist agenda. There is a difference sweetheart.

            And, there is a clear cut agenda on feminist sides to try and co-opt the secular and atheist agenda to become the feminist agenda. All atheists are not feminists anymore than all feminists are atheists.

            This, if Hemant wishes to keep the blog on jts orginal focus, should not be the place for feminist agendas

            • Onamission5

              1. I’m a grown damn woman, not a toddler.   My mother doesn’t even call me sweetheart.

              2. The feminist agenda is to be safe, treated decently, and be taken seriously.  You think it’s something else, which is obvious, but it isn’t.

              3. I don’t see you complaining about this blog being overtaken by the gay agenda. Is there a reason you think that female people are worthy of less rights or less respect than gay people?

              4. It’s Hemant’s blog. He can post what he likes, can he not?

              • Fsq

                Using the same methods of argumentation used by you and many of your supporters here, you must be homophobic based on your post. Why do you hate gays? Homophobia is not cool.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  No, idiot, she is RHETORICALLY observing that people are not upset about gay rights being spotlit, NOT that she is saying it’s wrong to spotlight gay rights.  Learn to fucking read.

                • Fsq

                  You’re cute when you get all worked up like that. You should consider applying to compete in “The World’s Hottest Feminist” pageant.

                  Submit some photos, tasteful nudes only please, and perhaps a little write up about some skills or talents you have. You know, like maybe a bit about how many words per minute you can type, or perhaps a nice recipe for muffins you bake for the school bake sale. Men like to read about gals that can do things inside and outside the home.

                  Now, I enjoy the fire in your belly, and between you and me, I think it is hot. But you might want to consider toning it down just a shade for the application. You gals are cute when you are fiesty at home, but outside the home, it may negatively affect the application process. Just some thoughts….
                  :) :) :)

                  See, i am just joshing. Cant you tell the context. I have emoticons!!!

                  All is well sugar, all is well.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  Don’t say I’m cute when I get worked up.  It’s demeaning and dismissive of women’s opinions, and it uses derogatory gendered language.

                  Don’t try to pretend that my appearance has ANY relevance to my opinions.

                  Don’t use sexual tropes to try to pressure me, and don’t act like I’m only relevant if I appear naked.

                  Don’t dredge up a lot of harmful gender stereotypes about traditionally feminine-coded activities.

                  Don’t act like women’s achievements are all about pleasing men.

                  Don’t demean my disgust in you by saying it’s hot.

                  Don’t tell me to “tone it down.”

                  Don’t trivialize my concern for women’s rights as “feisty”

                  Don’t indulge in over-the-top misogyny to derail women’s concerns.

                  Don’t fucking call me sugar.

                  Don’t use language that I have to hear on a daily basis to demean my worth and my relevance and that of other women and pretend it’s not perpetuating harmful stereotypes about women.

                  Don’t fucking pretend you wouldn’t LOVE not to have to distance yourself from such reprehensible attitudes with an emoticon.

                  And most important of all:

                  DON’T FUCKING PRETEND THAT MAKING A JOKE TO EXPRESS ALL OF YOUR LOATHESOME OPINIONS MAKES ANY OF THIS SHIT OKAY!!!

                  So seriously, go fuck yourself, you insufferable fucking DOUCHE*

                  *Douche, noun: a toxic, invasive, utterly unnecessary entity based in the othering and pathologizing of women.

                • Fsq

                  This. This is the stuff of application gold. I tell you fish-pants, you get this into the application and sister, you are on your way to the title of World’s Hottest Feminist.

                  You have the feisty fire in the belly girlfriend. Now if we can just get the “whizzy biscuit” hygiene taken care of you are on the home stretch….speaking of which, you don’t have any stretch marks do you? If so, perhaps some lotion or moisturizer? Just some thoughts….
                  :) :) :) :)

                  See everything is okay, I am like Captain America with a shield of emoticons…

                • LeftSidePositive

                  So what exactly are you gaining from being such an overtly misogynistic douchebag?

                  What the fuck is possessing you to type such hateful comments?

                  Why the hell are you so completely unable to address women’s actual points that you have to dive into this vile, gender-based ad hominem?

                  Why the fuck do you think its acceptable to use language that has marginalized women for centuries to continue marginalizing a woman with whom you disagree?

                  Are you proud of yourself? Do you think you’re any different from any other internet troll with a massive problem with women?

                • IndyFitz

                   DON’T, DON’T, DON’T, DON’T, DON’T… and DO, DO, DO, DO, DO.  DON’T do everything that pisses her off — she commands you! — but DO do whatever else she tells you to do.  That isn’t very polite, you know.  I worry you’re a man-hating misandrist.  Maybe even a misanthrope.  But I love you and I’m willing to help you however I can.  Just let me know.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  Yeah, god forbid I stand up for myself when I’m mistreated!!

                  You’re still not convincing anyone by just flinging around “misandrist” with even less accuracy than a chimp flings its feces.

                  And why the fuck are you trolling me with this “I love you” bullshit?!  Can you make it any MORE clear that you enjoy mocking and demeaning women, and that you enjoy trivializing our concerns?

                • Fsq

                  She is full of a lot of do-dos….

                  Hah.

                  That means TWO things…
                  :)

                  Emoticon^^^^^^ everything is alright now…..

                • amycas

                  I’d just like you to know that there is a “flag comment” button. When people cross the line like Fsq did, I tend to use it. Discussion deteriorates quickly when xe belittles women by telling them they should pose nude. It’s unnecessary and inexcusable.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  Oh I flagged him as well!  But in case my single flagging wasn’t enough, I figured his bullshit should be answered as a teaching example for the rest of the community…

                • IndyFitz

                   Can you post ANY response that doesn’t involve calling people names and swearing at them? Or is that pretty much your entire bag of tricks?

                • LeftSidePositive

                  If you were even remotely literate, you would understand that I both deconstruct the sexist stereotypes AND show them the contempt they deserve.

                  Notice, in the post to which you replied, I highlighted the salient difference between actually expressing a viewpoint and positing a viewpoint to show by example how an analogous viewpoint is wrong.  This is not hard to understand, if your feeble brain weren’t so distracted by the word “fuck.”

                  But tone trolling is just soooo original!

                • IndyFitz

                   You are a stunning intellect indeed.  Even though you may be a man-hating misandrist or even a misanthrope.  I still love you and offer my help.

              • IndyFitz

                1. Congrats, you’re a big girl.  We get it.

                2. Hustler’s bit has nothing to do with anything you just said.

                3. Nice misdirection.  We’re not talking about gays, and you’re the one who made the equation between gays and females. Maybe we should stay on the topic.

                4. Then Hemant should rename his blog “Friendly Hemant” and post what he likes.  He invites other to participate in this.  He represents himself as running an atheist blog.  If it were a feminist blog or gay-rights blog or flying-purple-people-eater blog, I wouldn’t read it.  (Well, I might read the FPPE blog, because it’s funny.  But I hope you get my point.)  Since Hemant hasn’t, to my knowledge, proclaimed “It’s my way or the highway,” I’m assuming we have an open invitation to decry when he allows his blog to sidetrack like this.  So we are.

                • amycas

                   If you don’t like what Hemant posts, then stop reading his blog. It’s not up to you to decide what he posts on his blog. She wasn’t comparing gays to women, she was making the observation that when Hemant posts about gay rights, nobody ever gets upset that it’s not directly related to atheism. Yet, as soon as a post about women’s issues comes up, people crawl out of the wood-work to complain that it’s not directly related to atheism. Why don’t you guys also complain on the gay rights posts?

            • Patterrssonn

              Personally I don’t see why this should be a forum for you’re misogynist agenda.

              • Jess

                There’s a difference between the posts us readers make in the comments section and the material that gets published on the blog.

                • Patterrssonn

                  And?

              • IndyFitz

                 Spout whatever you want.  I think I have made it VERY clear in many posts here that I am not a misogynist.  But I don’t give a shit if anyone things I am.  That isn’t what we’re talking about.  We’re talking about the appropriateness of this entire post — given the poster’s obvious feminist push for posting it, based on HER OWN COMMENTS… which seem neither “friendly” nor “atheist.”

                You can throw a tantrum all you want and accuse people of being misogynists.  That doesn’t change the argument being had.  Distracting from it by calling people misogynists just points to how it just didn’t belong here in the first place.

                So, to answer: I don’t see why this should be a forum for YOUR agenda.  This is about atheism — the very reason we’re debating this post at all.  You can pretend it’s something else and feel good about yourself, but it doesn’t win any wars, kid.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  The fact that you demean women with terms like “sweetheart” and snidely refer to them as being “a big girl” when they call you on your bullshit, not to mention your extraordinary resistance and hostility to women’s issues, indicates pretty strongly that your worldview incorporates a fair dose of misogyny, whether you are aware of it or not.

                • Patterrssonn

                  But he agrees with feminism wholeheartedly, it’s just feminists he doesn’t like.

                • Fsq

                  It is exactly how I feel about liberals and liberalism. I aa card carrying bleeding heart, but if there is anything I cant stand, it is being in a room fill of self righteous liberals….and you are the prime example. For people like you, it is always “your are with me 100 percent, or you are against us”. How dull and boring…again, like you!!!

                • IndyFitz

                  I think you’re a man-hating misandrist.  You should learn tolerance of the other gender, you know.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  I don’t think flinging gender-based insults and discounting women’s opinions is an inherent quality of men. I don’t hate men; I only scorn those particular men who demean, marginalize, objectify, and denigrate women. This is a BEHAVIOR, not a TRAIT, so learn the fucking difference. Moreover, this pompous, sexist, privileged, silencing attitude of yours is harmful to other people so there’s no fucking reason why I should “tolerate” it.

                • Faq

                  You are a fucking loon. Seriously. You really come across as someone with mental illness. No emoticons. I think you are seriously unhinged and you need some help.

                  Whoever hurt you, or whatever happened you need to get that addressed, because frank,y, your behavior suggest we will read about you in some mass shooting.

                  And yes, you indeed hate men. In almost every thread I have seen of yours, you just go ballistic toward men n general.

                  Get help.

                  Seriously.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  Great–you’re trying to silence women AGAIN with accusations of mental illness. This totally enhances your credibility as a totally-not-sexist-asshat.

                  Saying “treat people with respect and go fuck yourself if you don’t” is evidence of homicidal mania? Really? I didn’t know homicidal maniacs had such deep-seated respected for humanity and pro-social values.

                  No. Not “men in general.” Toward “men who devalue, mock, try to control, shame, and otherwise marginalize women.” These are NOT the same thing. I have been VERY specific in the behavior I’ve been calling out.

                • Horatio

                   You have jumped the shark from being a real jerk to being a fucking asshole

                • amycas

                   LSP has thoroughly explained, with examples from your own posts, why she thinks you’re misogynist, but you’ve yet to give any examples of her being a misandrist. Just because you repeat it, don’t make it so.

                • amycas

                  The OP has been compared to a temper tantrum, been called unfriendly and been accused of being over-the-top and vitriolic, yet nobody has posted any actual examples from the OP to justify this characterization. I’m beginning to think you guys didn’t even read it.

            • Coyotenose

               I hear that using demeaning gender-based pseudo-endearments to try to dismiss the other person is hip and charming, and not at all shitty and misogynistic.

            • amycas

               The “feminist agenda”:

              1. convince society that women are people

              2. convince society to treat women and men equally (cuz they’re all people)

              3. ???

              4. profit!

              This looks curiously similar to the “gay agenda”…

          • Jess

            Incidentally, assuming what atheists should want or do besides having no belief in a god sounds a little prescriptive, don’t you think? I am free from religion precisely because I don’t want to be told how I should feel about certain subjects. As it happens, human rights- including equality between the genders- are important to me, but I don’t like being told how I should feel about them by others, and that tone is precisely what irritated me about this article. 

            • Kelly

              Is there any way to unlike a post, because I just angrily hit liked when I was going for the reply.

              What a load of horse maure.  We don’t need atheists in the movement who are too lazy to think about intersectionality concerning minority issues.  If you want to be a misogynistic fool, you certainly have that right, but don’t expect anyone to pat you on the head. 

              • Jess

                Who said anything about a movement? Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god, and nobody describing themselves as an atheist necessarily has a duty to become an active part of a group with anyone. They can do precisely as they wish, as far as I’m concerned. If that involves political activism, great. If not, I hardly think it’s my business. How dare you tell myself and others in my position that we are not welcome to “your movement”. 
                Lazy, you say? Actually, I happen to be very politically active in my private life. But I don’t necessarily think this has anything to do with my lack of faith, which I consider a freedom from obligation. I try to live my life without harming others, but see this as a personal choice rather than a necessary requirement of being an atheist. And can we stop with the calling anyone who thinks this article was irrelevant a misogynist? I don’t hate women. For the last time, I am a woman and am very proud of it. So I’m afraid throwing a “misogynist” label at me to try and invalidate my arguments is completely absurd.

                • amycas

                  There is clearly a movement in America that is based in what has been termed “New Atheism.” This New Atheism is about more than the mere lack of belief–it incorporates many values from humanism and intersects with the concerns of minorities and women, and also deals in strengthening the separation of church and state. Go read about the Reason Rally if you don’t believe me.

              • IndyFitz

                 Typical feminist: If someone opposed ANYTHING remotely connected to feminism, that person MUST be a misogynist.  That’s very Christian reasoning of you, Kelly.  Perhaps you should go back to church.

                This isn’t about misogyny, but nice try.  Any reasonable, thinking person can see it isn’t about misogyny.  It’s about a poster who took an atheist-centric blog WAY off-topic and posted about Hustler’s constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression and satire — something Hustler and Larry went to SCOTUS to fight for, and won — and not about feminism.  Clearly, the whiny feminist poster didn’t care about anything but stomping her foot about how mean people are to an atheist women with a PhotoShopped d*ck in her mouth.  So don’t f*cking post about it!  All you’ve done is taken this out of the Hustler mainstream and used it to inflame others about something that has NO BEARING ON THIS BLOG.  Honestly, people!  This blog is starting to sound like a Christian chat room — throwing reason, logic, and common freaking sense out the window to blindly trumpet the call to feminism.  How is that not completely f*cked up?

                • Patterrssonn

                  I think the post is idiotic too but not half as idiotic as the “feminists are ruining everything” hysteria its provoked.

                • IndyFitz

                   The most telling thing here is that THAT is how you choose to interpret this.  Or maybe you just can’t help it; I don’t know.  A cursory reading of the comments here do not in any way, to a rational mind — at least it seems to me — indicate that “feminists are ruining everything” hysteria is happening.  Not even close.  But like a Christian interpreting everything entirely to fit his belief system, Patterrssonn, you’re doing a great job skewing the debate so as to seem like we’re all evil misogynists out to destroy women.  Keep up the good work!  (Since people have a problem with the “obvious sarcasm” issue… you’re not doing a great jog, and not doing good work.)

                • Patterrssonn

                  I don’t think you need my help looking like a misogynist Indy.

                • http://www.facebook.com/ellenbeth EllenBeth Wachs

                   Oh, hell no. He did a splendid job of that hours ago.

                • amycas

                   “Hustler’s constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression and
                  satire — something Hustler and Larry went to SCOTUS to fight for, and
                  won — and not about feminism.”

                  Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism. Nobody (including the OP) called for laws to be passed to prohibit this type of publication. Stop being so disingenuous.

              • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                 Just click “liked” and you can un-like it.

              • Fsq

                You just used the word “head” ia negative way. As a man, i know you were using the word “head” in a way that suggest the tip, or crown – aka the head – of a penis is a bad thing. How dare you do that? How can you call yourself a humanist when you clearly have a hatred of men and penis. How dare you use the word “head” in such a condescending and sexist way.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                   Oh, shut the fuck up, already.

          • IndyFitz

             It’s satire.  It’s what Hustler does.  It has nothing to do with atheism.  And it isn’t atheists’ jobs to crusade to ensure everyone is treated with basic decency, or taken seriously, or feeling safe.  Everyone here seems to be taking a Hustler satire and turning into objectification of women.  It’s not.  It’s satire, and insulting someone who Larry Flynt feels is insulting.  It’s what he does.  I personally haven’t bought an issue in years, but after this f*cking silliness, I’m heading straight to the magazine stand to buy one.

            Making everyone feel safe and happy and all good about themselves isn’t what this is about.  Flynt has the right to satire — he proved it when he won a pretty major case against a pretty gigantic evangelist, for all those of you who have no idea.  That decision was landmark and helped protect atheists from control by religionists.  If Larry wants to PhotoShop d*cks in conservative atheists’ mouths, I’ll buy his magazine just to support him.  Especially because so many atheists in here are crusading to stop such mean behavior!  Really, people.

            • Amorey67

              Clear and reasoned, well said.

              • IndyFitz

                 Thank you, Amorey67.  Many others do not think so, thus the tantrums and claims that I and others are misogynistic.  Apparently, if you disagree with a post of obvious feminist agenda appearing in an atheist blog, you can’t POSSIBLY be clear and reasoned… you MUST be a woman hater.  How sad!

                • LeftSidePositive

                  Since the “feminist agenda” is that women should have political, economic, and social equality to men, then yes, by definition anyone who disagrees with that is in fact a woman-hater, because you’d have to hate a group to deny them political, economic, and social equality.

                • IndyFitz

                   Damn, you’re slow at this.  One more time; pay attention: This debate isn’t about whether we agree with feminist points.  It’s about whether such a post has any business on an atheist blog.  I’ve explained this so many times today I’m tired of trying; as I’ve said, if you actually read the posts here and didn’t just respond to things with the apparent hope of stoking trouble, you’d know.  I wholeheartedly agree with feminism in every form.  One hundred percent.  That isn’t the discussion here.  You repeatedly choose to ignore that in favor of shitting on people for whatever amusement you’re getting, but that’s the way it is.  The discussion is about why this is even here.  It’s an atheist blog.  The tenuous connection of Cupp being an alleged atheist is almost an afterthought as Laura Lane uses this post as a pedestal for feminist lectures.  Do I agree with her?  Doesn’t matter.  Do I support feminist ideals?  Doesn’t matter.  That isn’t what this is about.  I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Pay attention!  Because you clearly haven’t been, O Holier Than Thou.

                  By the way, your lumping in of everyone who doesn’t agree with everything you do as woman haters is interesting.  Do you feel that the women here today who agree that this shouldn’t have been posted here are also misogynists?

                  It’s not all black or white, you know.  And did I mention you should read other posts here?  Maybe.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  Damn, you’re really hostile to outspoken women.

                  SHUT THE FUCK UP about “not paying attention.”  This is arrogant, condescending, and, frankly, sexist.  DID IT EVER FUCKING OCCUR TO YOU that I AM paying attention, and that I have different priorities and different concerns than you?

                  I FUCKING KNOW this is about whether or not this belongs on an atheist blog, and I think this is about the fact that you are being a privileged, male-centered, chauvinistic ass to think that it doesn’t.

                  NO YOU DON’T agree with feminism in every form.  YOU HAVE SHOWN that  you are incredibly hostile and condescending to women who don’t agree with you, and you have insulted them in very gendered terms. Moreover, you are showing a pathological case of male entitlement by acting like women’s concerns aren’t relevant. You have shown that you feel inconvenienced by feminism.  You have shown that you think you get to dictate when and where women’s concerns are appropriate (and they CERTAINLY are appropriate here, both because of the immense amount of religious baggage in misogyny and sex-negativity, AND because of sections of the atheist movement that have a lot of sexism issues).

                  I didn’t say that everyone who doesn’t agree with EVERYTHING I do is  woman-hater. I said, VERY CLEARLY, that those who oppose the social, political, and economic equality of women are women-haters. Learn to fucking read.

                  And, for your information, I DO read other posts here, SO FUCK OFF YOU INSUFFERABLE CONDESCENDING ASS!

                • Fsq

                  Why do you hate women? You used the word douche in a bad way. Ad now you use fuck in a potty mouth way. You must hate women. Misogynist.

                • amycas

                   Douches have been shown to be harmful to women. So calling a misogynist a douche is very apt.

                • IndyFitz

                   You tell me to shut the fuck up, fuck off, call me an insufferable condescending ass… do you read your own posts?  At all?  I repeat: I think you’re a man-hating misandrist.  Play nice.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  No, I’m telling you to shut the fuck up and to fuck off BECAUSE you are an insufferable condescending ass, not because you’re a man.  The two have nothing to do with each other: there are many men who do not behave like total douchebags to women, and that number of decent, thoughtful, egalitarian people has actually been increasing greatly in recent years as feminism is getting more outspoken (although I know that makes you feel lonely). Your BEHAVIOR is harmful and demeaning, and that’s why you’re getting called out on it.  Don’t try to pretend your behavior is your identity and act like that erases all the harm you’re causing.

                  You really sound as stupid as those Catholic priests who wine “you have anti-Catholic bigotry!” when, no, we’re actually legitimately angry about the kids they raped. No one’s giving you shit simply because you’re a man. We’re giving you shit because you are behaving appallingly to women, and this is not an inherent condition of manhood.

                • belongsomewhere

                  Misandry simply IS NOT a cultural phenomenon in the same way misogyny is.  Seriously, check your privilege.  

                • amycas

                   She’s said those things to two people (so far) on this thread: you and Fsq. She’s also explained why she said those things, and none of the reasons had anything to do with your being a man.

                • Patterrssonn

                  Can’t be easy agreeing wholeheartedly with feminism in every form when those damned uppity feminists just won’t shut up.

                • amycas

                  Nobody questions why other posts that have nothing to do with atheism are on this blog. This question is only posed when we’re discussing women’s issues. That’s why we’re highly suspicious of you when you say you are not misogynist.

                • amycas

                  Can you explain what you think “feminist agenda” is? People keep throwing around that phrase, but they’re not defining it. Then when an actual feminist defines it, you say it’s irrelevant. It’s relevant because you referenced the “feminst agenda” and didn’t define it.

            • LeftSidePositive

              I don’t think you understand what satire means.

              http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/05/15/but-its-satire/

              For starters, good satire involves punching UP, not reinforcing harmful attitudes against a traditionally marginalized group.

              Secondly, the fact that you can get away with saying appalling things in satire is the result of the author showing he means the OPPOSITE of what he wrote.  The reason Jonathan Swift has a SATIRE of eating babies is to show that the callousness toward the poor is WRONG.  Saying something horrible and then just going “ha-ha!!” when your audience agrees with the underlying horribleness IS NOT SATIRE.  It’s just being a fucking douche.

              • IndyFitz

                 Or, perhaps, the definition that says satire is “a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.”  Seems to fit the bill to me!  Or do we need your seal of approval first?

                Second, careful using the word “douche.”  I’ve been informed on here today that using words that might possibly be offensive to women!

                Third, brace yourself… this might hurt… but Hustler CAN BE a fucking douche.  Like satire, that’s ALSO protected.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  And if you’re ridiculing someone for being sexual, that makes you a total fucking asshole. If you think sexual acts are a source of scorn, derision, and ridicule, that makes you a total fucking asshole.  Just because you express yourself with something that apes (but does not actually live up to) the style of those who exposed major social and political ideas, does not make YOUR particular ideas any less repulsive.

                  By the way, it might interest you to know there is a feminist interpretation of the word “douche”: a douche is a totally unnecessary product that it irritating to women’s genitalia and carries serious health consequences including increased risks of yeast infections and vaginosis. It is marketed to women based on cultural pressures for them to think of themselves as unclean or undesirable.  As such, “douche” is perfectly contextually supported as a toxic, corrosive, unpleasant, and misogynistic entity, and as such it seems like a very good description of you.

                  Don’t use language like “brace yourself… this might hurt…” That is a rape reference.

                  The fact that Hustler engages in douchebag behavior IS A PROBLEM.  It is a matter of your privilege and self-entitlement that you can just laugh it off and not realize the harm that these attitudes do to women.

                  Again, what the FUCK are you going on about with “protected”? I have NEVER argued for any type of legal sanction against Hustler, or against misogynistic douchebags in general.  The solution to awful speech is MORE SPEECH pointing out why these entities are unworthy of social capital or of customers for their business.  It is not to restrict their speech by legal means, but to make it the opinions of a scorned fringe minority.

                  Here’s a simple analogy: it’s like religion.  Yes, it’s constitutionally protected, but that doesn’t mean we don’t criticize the hell out of it and show people why it’s wrong.

                • IndyFitz

                  More vicious name calling.  I think you’re  a man-hating misandrist.  Please play nice.  Godless loves you.  And so do I.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  Did you notice that I very carefully identified the behavior I was appropriately labeling?  It may interest you to know that it’s not “being a man.” It’s “thinking it’s okay to ridicule women for being sexual.” This is a culturally-conditioned attitude and a reflection of privilege, but not in any way a natural result of being male. This would not be hard to understand for anyone with half a fucking brain.

                  And don’t you fucking DARE use a shitload of gender-based insults, demean female posters, play the victim by whining “misandrist” when you’re accurately called out on your spiteful behavior, and then have the FUCKING GALL to tell me to “play nice.”  You don’t get to shit all over the rug and then whine when someone tells you to cut it the fuck out.

                • amycas

                  Somebody never actually studied literary criticism.

                  ps. women don’t really use douches anymore. In fact, doctors tell women not to use them, because they are harmful. So, really, douche is a very apt description of a sexist person.

              • Fsq

                AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! How DARE you use a term that is used for cleanly women parts cleaning. In a derogatory and sexist fashion….ahhh…ah….ah..ah….ahhhhhhhhhh the sky is falling the sky is falling…..sexist…..misogynist….sexist…..mahater….no wait…..woman hater…..ahhhhhh ah ah ah ah. The sky is falling…..the world is ending…..

                Douche is not nice. Womehave to use those to clean the ol’ coochie coos and to cheapen the douche is to cheapen coochie coos, and to cheapne coochie coos means you hate women, which means you are a misogynist.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  No, and you apparently know fuck-all about women’s hygiene.  Women DO NOT have to use douches to clean their vaginas, and in fact using douches increases the risk of yeast infections and bacterial vaginosis, and irritates the vaginal mucosa and makes it more susceptible to the transmission of infection. Douche is a very harmful practice imposed on women (and strongly advised AGAINST by gynecologists) by a culture that is obsessed with telling women they are unclean (when in fact the vagina has a natural self-cleaning equilibrium that involves commensal flora) due to some cultural prejudice against the appropriate smell of a healthy female vagina.

                  So, for its total superfluity to women’s health, the harm it causes women’s bodies, and the misogynistic attitudes that perpetuate its use, “douche” is eminently useful and appropriate as a pejorative.And, if you think women’s vaginas need to be cleaned with douches, you are either shockingly ignorant or you have some very undesirable cultural baggage.

                • Fsq

                  I am now going to call you fish-pants…because it is funny

                • LeftSidePositive

                  That is only funny if you are deeply invested in misogyny.

                  You know what, when I’m having an argument with a person of color, I don’t whip out racial slurs and then say it’s funny.  When I’m having an argument with a gay person, I don’t start calling them “faggot” and then say I’m just joking.

                  You know why? BECAUSE THIS IS NOT THE SHIT THAT ETHICAL PEOPLE DO. The very fact that it would even CROSS YOUR MIND to use gender-based insults against me shows how deeply misogynistic you are.

                • Fsq

                  No, what it does tell me is that I own your ass. You are so easily manipulated into frothing anger and so easily misdirected it is hysterical.

                  In almost every post you respond to, you go ballistic. You have two settings, Low and Super-Fucking-Crazy-High. You have no jn between. And people like you caeasily be misdirected.

                  You have passion, I’ll give you that, but you are so misguided and over the map it scares me a little.

                  And you are also so clearly ine sided with no capacity to think outside your very VERY small world view that you lose out on the reality of the world.

                  I suspect you are very young; around 19-23, on campus, and full of youthful energy and zeal. But that is a dangerous tool when yielded by someone so easily controlled.

                • http://www.facebook.com/ellenbeth EllenBeth Wachs

                   She has a right to go ballistic on you. The way you have been demeaning and insulting and patronizing is over the top ridiculous.  One only needs to read YOUR posts to see how utterly crass and cruel and MISOGYNISTIC you are.  It’s easy for you to do so anonymously. Why don’t you register with your real name and post your garbage?

                • LeftSidePositive

                  Why do you think I am being “manipulated” into being angry? Did it ever fucking occur to you that I find it necessary to stand up for your bullshit and to show the other commenters here that this kind of misogyny won’t be tolerated?

                  Stop being such a fucking tone troll.  I will yell and scream at your bullshit as much as I fucking please.

                  It’s not “misdirected” to call you on your hateful language and your misogynistic tripe.  Rational, ethical people do not say shit like that.  Only latent misogyny rears its vile head like that.  If it even OCCURS to you to try to shut down women using that kind of hate and marginalization, then you really are as hateful as you have said, even if you try to distance yourself from it.  Oh and this “I was just kidding all along?” It’s fucking been done, asshole.

                  And what the fuck is “misguided” about telling a hateful misogynistic asshat like you exactly where he can stuff it?

                  What “reality” of the world are you referring to?  Because I’ll tell you what–the reality that I actually have to deal with every day, as a woman, DOES include women getting marginalized like this, DOES include women having their opinions discounted based on their gender, DOES include men trying to make women feel unsafe for speaking their minds, and DOES include social shaming of sexuality being used to silence women.  What “reality” am I missing out on by being aware of that?  Oh, you mean the reality of being a privileged male? Well, sorry, that’s not actually “reality” for me–that’s not even accessible to me.

                  And, no, I have two postgraduate degrees, motherfucker, and I deal with life and death on a daily basis, so you can go fuck yourself with your assumptions that because I’m an outspoken feminist I *must* be sheltered. Fuck that. And if you getting your ass handed to you is you “controlling” me, I think you’re the one who needs to rethink what “reality” means.

                • Fsq

                  Yer cute when you get angry….kinda like a tiny version of the hulk…only with estrogen…

                • LeftSidePositive

                  Again, every time you say shit like this, it proves all the more why issues relating to sexism are VITAL topics for discussion in the atheist blogosphere.

                • Fsq

                  You know what, I am going to stop goading you because you strike me as someone who is mentally unhinged. Sincerely. You have some serious shit going on, and frankly, I do not want to be the one who pushes you over the edge.

                  So, I say, since you have no snark-filter, I am done pushing you for health reasons.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  You dump a metric shitton of sexist bullshit and then you have the audacity to say I am unhinged?

                  Who the fuck are you to appoint yourself the arbiter of how people can call you out on your bullshit?You claim “snarkiness” should somehow excuse you for all the vile crap you’ve spewed, even though I’ve already called you out on that cheap schoolyard-bully dodge?Oh, and minimizing the concerns of women by claiming they have mental health problems simply for being outspoken or politically active has TOTALLY not been done before. Right.

                • Horatio

                   Don’t worry LSP, anyone that can read can see the unhinged ones are Indy and FSQ. 

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                   Not to mention that particular dodge is just fucking marginalizing those who have mental illnesses, like just because I’m a depressive, anything I have to say is somehow automatically invalidated because “mental illness, LOL”.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  You’re right–I was looking at this from the false-accusation angle, but it is also true that there’s a lot of ad hominem and ableism in refusing to consider any perspectives of anyone who has a mental illness.  Just think of the things some of the theist trolls have been saying to JT Eberhardt after he came forward (in a TOTALLY awesome talk!) about his struggles with mental illness.

                • Fsq

                  Can you explain to me just how you rationalize out the use of “motherfucker” as it is as sexist and extremely misogynistic?

                  Yet one more prime example of your hypocrisy, and your inability to see it.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  Um, incest is bad and shit didn’t exactly turn out well for Oedipus?

                  Nice try, thanks for playing.

                • amycas

                   When you describe her cogent and well-written responses to your outright insults as crazy, it makes me think you haven’t read anything she wrote.

                • belongsomewhere

                  Yes! Really well-put.

                  Two things about misogyny:
                  1) It’s insidious and often invisible.
                  2) It’s internalized in such a way that people who are guilty of it are frequently utterly unaware of it (hence their defensiveness).

                  One cannot totally be held accountable for holding internalized misogynistic ideas (since they are so wide-spread and culturally encoded), but everyone MUST be held accountable for their behavior when they’re called out for misogyny–in other words, one must think carefully about their behavior when someone else says, “Hey, that was screwed up.”

                  The discussion doesn’t have to end with an accusation of misogyny–so long as the person who has been accused of misogyny recognizes the need to think about why their words were interpreted that way.

                  This is the case with all forms of privilege, whether that privilege is rooted in gender, race, class, religion, etc.  Privilege is a thing that exists.  Misogyny is one manifestation of privilege. 

                • IndyFitz

                   I knew you were going to say all that.

                • IndyFitz

                   I do NOT believe you are a misogynist, Fsq.  But you clearly hate fish.  You appear to be a misicthyist.  I still love you and offer you my help.

                • IndyFitz

                   Wow… did you really just take his obvious smart-ass post and launch into a ranting lecture about the dangers of douching?  I think you are a douche-hating misdouchist.  But I still love you and offer my help.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  And did you just assume a perfectly medically accurate assessment of douching was a “rant”?  Wow, you really are hostile to women being outspoken and knowledgeable!!

                  Moreover, his “smart-ass post” was an attempt to silence me by playing “Tu Quoque” (yet again!) by pretending to claim that saying “douche” was unfeminist.  So I told him why he was wrong. It doesn’t matter that his statement was “smart-ass,” IT WAS AN ATTEMPT TO INVALIDATE MY ARGUMENT, so I answered it.  But, if you’re claiming it was ONLY smart-assed, then he had no grounds to invalidate my argument, so you’re really just acknowledging that he’s an idiot.And, yeah–I hate douches?  What’s wrong with that?  They cause bacterial vaginosis and lead to higher transmission rates of STDs.  Isn’t that a good thing to be against?!Do you even TRY to make sense, or are you just trying to silence me by repeating the same shit over and over in every reply?

                • Kodie

                  Can we bring this closer to context with an analogy of how condescending you and your pal are being? “You just hate god right now, but he is in your life and waiting for you to turn to him and love him back. I love you and I will pray for you.”

                  I really don’t think anyone’s being productive at this point, but you and fsq are trolls who don’t get it. The more it gets explained to you, the more fire you fuel with saying idiotic things that prove you don’t take women seriously. I don’t like this post, but I hate when things get out of hand, as if women need you fellas’ help seeing things your way. Nobody wants to be like you, and you’re only “funny” because there are two of you. If one of you piss-poor losers wasn’t here, the other one would be laughing at his own jokes like the loser he is, getting the smackdown he deserves. And I say that to you as a person to a person, no physical violence implied. When women have a reason to be upset about something, some men and some women like to come out and ridicule them for caring about something important. I have read many of the comments, and yes, sexism is an important issue. I’m still not sure how this post really establishes anything nobody was aware of, but since it has come up and people felt an opening to say what they wanted to say, you should be ashamed of your hostility toward them for it. I’m really disappointed in your asshole behavior. Are you proud of yourselves? Two trolls, carrying on for hundreds of posts, proving yourselves to be cement-headed and glued to your fucking internet. Bravo, what have you gained out of this conversation?

                • IndyFitz

                   I’m sorry you feel that way, but respect your opinion.  I started merely posting that I thought the post was irrelevant.  Many hit me immediately with claims of misogyny.  Am I to silently assent to that?  Not at all.  Am I trolling now?  If you say so.  But this has gone from defending myself to firmly defending myself to fiercely defending myself as poster after poster has repeatedly found misogyny where there is none, cursed and insulted, etc.  Who is being the asshole?  Yes, this evening it got to the point where it was clear there was nothing to be gained by talking with these folks. But I am comfortable that I did try.  You can claim I’m an asshole, but it’s telling that the other folks swearing and insulting and repeatedly hammering with misogynist claims are apparently not assholes in your book.  But tha’ts you’re opinion.  Anyway, at this point I’m just responding to replies to my posts.  If they go away, I’ll go away.  And, for the record, Fsq is not my friend.  I’ve never seen him or interacted with him until today..

                • Kodie

                   I just don’t think either of you, whether you know each other or not, should be proud to spend a whole day like this, keeping people riled up, for what doesn’t look like in the spirit of defending yourselves, but for the fun of it. I didn’t think the post was topical either, but I did come in kind of late. Nobody bothered to call me names about my posts because I clearly laid out that this is important, but maybe not to everyone; it does make me uncomfortable, as a woman, but as an atheist, well, heck, I didn’t even have time today to scan the other articles today or catch up on the past few days. Obviously, this sensational headline caught a lot of interest that all of you could have ignored if you didn’t like it. I didn’t like it, but it’s really the only post I’m following right now. So, obviously it’s discussable – what does over 400 posts in one day say that this post is not on-topic when it’s obviously very popular to discuss!

                  So, contributing to the popularity of a topic you find out of place here, and I find interesting but out of place here, maybe there should be more of them. It’s a fucking train wreck is what it is, and you helped. I don’t believe accusations of trying to silence women – you love it and you want more. I would like either or both of you to come to some idea of what you’ve done here, which is failed to understand women’s issues. You were up to your neck all day in it, and if that were the sole factor, I would have to argue that women’s issues do concern you, but did you actually bother to learn anything? Or at least compromise on the premise that you might need to raise your consciousness a little, since some people take it very seriously and just trying to get it through your thick skull? Or, like, a long time ago, admit that you do care about women, and try to articulate how much you do, as long as you were investing your time and effort into it, instead of acting very much like you do not? Or just admit you hate women so much you’re not even going to dignify their complaints with an answer? It has to be one of those things.

                • Patterrssonn

                  Nice post

                • LeftSidePositive

                  We told you why we felt this topic was relevant, and you ignored our arguments and just continued to spout gender-based insults at us.  This pretty much invalidates your “I’m just concerned about relevance!” argument, right there. Your subsequent shockingly misogynistic behavior and your insistence on shutting down female posters shows beautifully that you are very hostile to women’s views,and provides good evidence that your “I just don’t think this is relevant!” is all just a sublimation of your misogyny and your reflexive hostility to women getting a platform on anything other than your terms.

                • IndyFitz

                   I am clearly a misdouchist.

                • amycas

                   Douches are harmful to women. If you paid attention to what women (and doctors) have to say on this subject, you would know that.

        • Patterrssonn

          Thankfully that must mean you post a LOT less often too.

        • LeftSidePositive

          You might want to check your privilege, and have some empathy for people who are subjected to these kind of attitudes on a regular basis–both in the atheist community and out of it.

        • amycas

           Then skip those posts. I follow lots of blogs. I don’t necessarily read all of the posts. I skip the ones that don’t interest me.

      • Jess

        I have nothing against feminism. In fact, I absolutely agree the subject discussed here is completely vile. But I subscribed to this blog specifically to see issues surrounding atheism and religion discussed, rather than other political tangents. There are lots of other causes and interests I support and am happy to explore elsewhere, but I don’t think we should muddy the previously clear waters of this blog by introducing material peripheral to the cause.

        • Fsq

          Well said and agreed.

        • JamesM

          And I expect to see you post complaining about off-the-topic-of-atheism articles every time there is one. Or is every conceivable topic related to atheism except feminism?

          • Jess

            This is the first article I have read so far to be so off the mark. Maybe I just haven’t clicked on the titles of the others because they instantly seemed irrelevant, but this one masqueraded as being related to atheism and clearly isn’t at all.

          • IndyFitz

             Jess is right.  This is way off topic.  And JamesM, whining and trying to insinuate that those of us complaining must be woman-haters (especially with Jess being a woman) is just silly.  It’s also dishonest. You’re arguing like a Christian apologist who can’t think of anything intelligent to say, or any viable arguments, so you start throwing out diversions to make everyone defend them.  There’s nothing to defend here — except perhaps this post appearing at all.  Heck, if it had been framed as “So do you agree with Hustler’s bit slamming on an atheist?” then who could argue?  But the poster didn’t do that — she turned this into a feminist crusade from the outset.

            Point in fact, she said, “Do candid conservative male pundits have to put up with this kind of
            abuse? I think not. Women who raise their voices in the public sphere
            should not have to be afraid of being objectified as a punishment. If
            you have an issue with what they say, talk about their arguments, not
            their looks.”

            YES, conservative male pundits DO have to put up with this kind of abuse.  Why?  Protected speech.  Why else?  Because, as I have said numerous times on this page, this is what Hustler has been doing for DECADES.  There are LOADS of men depicted in such insulting ways.  IT’S HUSTLER, people.  That’s what it does.  That’s what it has done for at least 25 years when I first read it.  Don’t like it?  Don’t read it!  Read it by mistake and decide you didn’t like it?  Don’t frickin’ post feminist rants on an atheist blog!

            Using the subject’s atheism as a tenuous connection to justify publishing this post?  Abhorrent.

            • Coyotenose

              “Abhorrent”? Gosh, that doesn’t support the opinion that a lot of people in this thread have that those who hate this post’s existence are overreacting.

        • IndyFitz

           Jess — well said.  I couldn’t agree.  As I said earlier, it’s annoying to object to this and be accused of being a misogynist, which I absolutely and most certainly am not.  This just isn’t the place for it.  Sure, Hemant can do what he wants, but then he should man up and change his blog to Friendly Hemant, then.

          • Jess

            Thanks a lot- very glad I’m not alone in this one. Seems like labeling people “misogynistic” is the go to ammo for this crowd. Guess they’ll use the same approach on Hemant if he asks them to take it outside. Shame to see such a promising blog become exploited by those with ulterior agendas.

            • IndyFitz

               I know.  Very sad.

            • ErickaMJohnson

               It drives me crazy when people do that. It’s a potent word and it needs to be used accurately.

              • Jess

                Exactly. Not only does using it so liberally have a boy-who-cried-wolf effect when it is applied to someone who actually treats women as inferior beings, but sticking the label on people who don’t deserve it can be hurtful.

              • IndyFitz

                 Good point.  To me, it seems that screaming “Misogynist!” and attacking others for innocent things like only weakens an cheapens the cause of feminism.  Personally, I think ANY group that takes itself so radically seriously tends to do its cause more harm than good.

                Take PETA.  I agree with much of what they say and do, but they so frequently go way over the top so as to caricaturize themselves that it’s hard to take them seriously.

                I’m an atheist and a liberal, but I own a handgun and have a permit to carry concealed.  But the NRA too often looks like a crowd of rampaging clowns –despite the good that it does.

                And radical feminists seem the same way.  I agree with much of what they espouse, but when angry feminists jump in at the drop of a hat and claim everyone’s misogynists — when intelligent, thinking people can CLEARLY see that that isn’t the case if they breathe for a minute — it makes them look silly and cheapens the cause.

                It’s NO DIFFERENT than a Christian coming into an atheist forum and saying, “I disagree with you atheists, and believe in such and such,” and some atheists going bonkers and immediately attacking the Xianit — it accomplishes nothing except making atheists in general seem like radical clowns, cartoon versions of what the group in general is trying to accomplish.

                Just like this discussion.  Basically, it’s “I don’t like you having an opinion that goes against mine, so YOU MUST BE A WOMAN HATER!”  And on comes the group vitriol.  Fine.  I can do this all year.

                • ErickaMJohnson

                  Yes, everything you just said, I agree with wholeheartedly. PETA, the NRA, and the misandronistic feminists are all hurting their causes and it drives me bonkers. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills when I listen to them.

                  It’s so frustrating to try and use the word feminist to describe myself and then turn around and see screaming hypocrites using the same word.

                  It’s especially frustrating in this community because I expect people to be more thoughtful here.

                  Maybe I should just stop at calling my self a humanist.

                • Fsq

                  Erika, you have a very well spokeway about you and that is commendable.

                  For as shitty as I come across, I amuch in the same thought category as this. But, not all humanists are feminists anymore than all feminists are humanists. Before you react to this, give it some thought.

                • IndyFitz

                   EMJ — no smileys, so I assume you’re not being sarcastic but serious. :-)

                  I think being an animal-right activist, a gun activist, a women’s-rights activist are all great things.  But when the groups go bananas, it makes everyone involved look bananas.

                  And if you object in any way — look out!  You’re likely to be labeled and animal hater, an anti-gun peacenik, a misogynist.

                  What happened to discussing different opinions without hating the other side and calling them names and misdirecting the debate to such negative things?  It’s disappointing.

                • http://www.facebook.com/ellenbeth EllenBeth Wachs

                   As soon as you use terms such as “radical feminists” and “angry feminists” you lose all credibility.

                  You might as well go the distance and say “feminazi” You know you want to.

                  How is using THOSE terms any different from evangelicals flinging the “militant atheist” label or the “angry atheist” stereotype at us?

            • amycas

               Every post I’ve seen where one of you* was called a misogynist was backed up by a multi-paragraph explanation of WHY they called you that. Almost every time, that explanation was ignored and instead you just repeated your assertion that this post is off-topic and then complained about being called a woman-hater. Go back and address the REASONS given for calling you that, then I’ll take this complaint seriously.

              *You in this post should be read as Jess**, IndyFitz or Fsq

              **although I don’t think Jess is as bad an offender as the others, xe has still not addressed the reasons why xe has been called a misogynist.

          • LeftSidePositive

            By the way, “man up” is a sexist term.

            • IndyFitz

               I think you see EVERYTHING as a sexist term.  You seem preoccupied with sexism.  I think you might be a man-hating misandrist.  Maybe a misanthrope.  But I still love you.

              • LeftSidePositive

                Why do you think you’re going to get anywhere repeating “man-hating misandrist” over and over again?  Why do you think adding “misanthrope” is apparently extra scathing?

                Why do you keep adding “I still love you”? Is it not BLATANTLY clear that you’re trolling?  Doesn’t the fact that you’re trolling a woman who is speaking out against sexism pretty much demonstrate that you’re a sexist fucking asshat?

                By the way, it’s not fucking hard to see why “man up” is a sexist term, unless you’re a willfully ignorant fool.  It is based on the cultural assumption that men are stronger, wiser, more noble, and braver than women.  Does anyone ever say “woman up”? No? Why is that? Because our culture assumes men are superior to women, and this is ABUNDANTLY demonstrated in how men shame each other by accusing them of being like girls.

              • amycas

                You see, when LSP says something is sexist or calls you sexist, she gives a lengthy post explaining why (the above post being the only exception in this thread, but I thought it was obvious why that phrase is considered sexist). But, I notice you call her a man-hating misandrist (redundant much?) and you give no explanation as to why you think that. Care to clarify?

        • LeftSidePositive

          I think this is really narrow-minded of you.  Having a whole blog that says only “look! there’s no evidence for God!” would be pretty damn boring.  Failing to address the multiple ways that religion poisons our society, including resistance to science education, research, LGBT rights, AND women’s rights and role in society would weaken the movement and just be generally irresponsible.  It’s also a critical issue because atheism as a movement has a lot of problems with sexism.  I’m sorry if that’s inconvenient for you, or if that’s not your favorite thing to read, but it is a really major concern.

          Furthermore, while atheism is just lack-of-belief-in-a-god-or-gods, which is a pretty boring single-position identifier, a significant portion of movement atheism feels that because this is the only life we’ve got, we’d better do it right, and that necessitates a certain concern for social justice.  Even more importantly, it is vital to being intellectually rigorous that we engage in some self-criticism and uphold a high standard for how we treat our enemies as well as our friends.  We would never tolerate this kind of behavior toward a movement ally, and we should not go in for cheap schadenfreude but instead use this as an example of what is not acceptable no matter what the political affiliation of the target.

          Finally, I think you’ve internalized some attitudes about feminism being a niche concern, and you seem to be perpetuating the attitude that men’s issues and men’s perspectives are matters of general concern, whereas women’s issues should be relegated to special-interest status.

          • IndyFitz

            No, I think YOU are the one perpetuating those perspectives.  I think you are perpetuating exactly what you want to believe that fits your preconceived view.  I find it difficult to imagine anything I could ever say that you won’t find some way to twist into misogyny.  I think YOU might be the misogynist.  I think you spend so much time fiercely attacking everyone… perhaps to hide your own inner hatred for women.  I worry that you’re a misanthrope and really hate both genders.  But I still love you and still offer my help.  We can be friends in email and learn from each other.

            • LeftSidePositive

              Okay now you’ve just gone off the fucking rails. Stop fucking trolling and start respecting women’s right to express themselves in this space.

            • Coyotenose

               Thanks for admitting that you are in fact trolling.

    • http://www.facebook.com/brittany.brelsford Brittany Brelsford

       How about you see this for what it is, a fellow woman being dehumanized and sexualized because of her voice in the political process. You should care about this, it should bother you. i’m sad for women everywhere if you dont see the harm in this

      • Jess

        I’m sorry, but isn’t having to take a particular position on something on the basis of my gender meant to be what your cause opposes?

        • Fsq

          Yes yes a thousand times yes to this.

    • IndyFitz

       Thank you.  My point, repeatedly, exactly.  This is a colossal waste of time.  I have never commented this much on anything on this blog, but Hemant, really… the idea that this is somehow relevant is absurd.  You’ve delved deep into the heart of conservative territory with this silly post (which I realize is not yours but presumably was approved by you).  Unbelievable.  Are we so out of things to fight for in our sphere that we have to begin waving flags for pointing out how mean and bad and classless Hustler is, and how it’s horrible to objectify and sexualize women?  Aren’t there blogs for that?  Somewhere?  Anywhere?

    • amycas

      Feminism is the belief that women are people and should be treated as such. If you believe that, then you’re a feminist. Feminism is related to the atheism movement for the same reason that lgbt issues and race issues are related to the atheism movement.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/MrRonda-Mathews/100002819358459 MrRonda Mathews

    It’s HUSTLER! Heeeelloo? You’re bitching about a crude satire that objectifies a women…from a crude magazine that objectifies women. Are you going to start bitching that water is wet too? Gimme a break. Shut up.

    • judith sanders

      “Bitching” is an unfortunate verb to use when describing a woman writing about a woman being crudely portrayed.

      • IndyFitz

         Again, there are other definitions of terms.  Why go straight to “bitching means women are bitches”???!!  If I say “Man, this discussion is f*cked up,” does my use of the F word automatically mean I’m talking about using women for their bodies?  Sheesh!

        • http://conuly.dreamwidth.org/ Conuly

          So why not use a term that’s generally used towards men instead of women?

          • Fsq

            Do you show the same faux indignance when someone utters the word cocksucker? Or how about dick? Peckerwood? Or what about the non gender based asshole?

            I eagerly await your rationilizations.

            • http://www.facebook.com/billyup Jesse Jones

              All of those words have more than one meaning too. LoL, go re-lace your birkenstocks.

              • Ejcpromo

                Women wear Birkenstocks, therefore you are a misogynist. Are uou proud of that? You rapist, misogynist, woman hater?

            • amycas

               I don’t use those terms and I call other people out for using those terms. But then again words gendered insults based on male anatomy, such as “dick head,” are generally not seen as bad as words based on female anatomy, such as “pussy.”

              Maybe this will help:

              “dick as an insult” is to “pussy as an in insult” as “cracker” is to “the ‘N’* word”

              *yeah, I won’t even spell that one out.

          • IndyFitz

             Seriously?  Did you actually just completely make my point?  Yes, you did.

            So, okay, let me answer that.  I f*cked my wife this morning.  But guess what?  She f*cked me right back.  But at work last week, they f*cked me by killing my raise.  All those men in charge tehre are dirty f*ckers!  And my Jeep yesterday… something wrong with the water pump, so it’s all f*cked up.  But the motorcycle ride I went on today… man, we had the BEST f*cking time!  And you know what my sister said when I told her we were having a cookout this weekend?  She said, “F*CK, yeah!”

            I suppose you can interpret every one of those as offensive to women.  But while some can claim offense to something, the real offense comes when there is INTENT to offend.  Clearly there was no intent in any of that to offend women.

            And if someone is offended… well, guess what, deal with it.  Seriously.  If we never said anything or typed anything for fear of offending someone, our entire race would never communicate.  It’s getting tiring to hear everyone stomp their feet in this world and whine because they’re offended. GET OVER IT.  That’s life.  You won’t like what everyone says.  Some of you, like many in this forum, I expect, will probably get offended by just about anything just about anyone says.  That’s their problems, and they have to deal with it.

            F*ck, yeah.  (No offense to any of you f*ckers out there.  I use “f*ckers” as a friendly term of adoration and mirth.)

            • amycas

               no, fuck is a term that can be generally applied to women and men, so it’s not a gendered insult or term.

      • Fsq

        Oh Lord Awmighty…I am fixin’ to get the vapors and jes fall all over myself cuz dey is usin’ the word “bitching” and oh my good heavens….wells I is jes gunna roll over cuz they is usin’ it all wrong….

        WTF.

    • IndyFitz

       Thank you!!!!!

      For the record, as I have posted here, Hustler has long made such mockeries of both men and women.  This isn’t a “pick on the women” day.  And also for the record, Larry Flynt has been a staunch supporter of feminist rights.  You can be a staunch supporter of feminist rights and still PhotoShop a d*ck in the mouth of a woman you don’t like.  Like any group that takes itself WAY too seriously, feminists seem to be unable to separate two things… “It’s my way or the highway, men!”  Really, there’s room for gray.  It’s not all black and white.  (Careful!  That last line was NOT a racist, white race/black race claim!  Don’t anyone run away with that and turn it into a non-talking point to distract everyone again!  Ahhhhh!!  Indy is an evil, racist, misogynist bastard!  And I Bet the dirty f*cker is an ATHEIST, too!  Sheesh.  (That last joke was because the mental capacity of many in here makes me feel like the angry feminists must be religious, too.  I am not a misogynist.  I am not a racist.  I am proudly atheist — like I used to think this blog was.)

      • http://conuly.dreamwidth.org/ Conuly

         “You can be a staunch supporter of feminist rights and still PhotoShop a d*ck in the mouth of a woman you don’t like.”

        No, you really can’t.

        • IndyFitz

           Yeah, you really can.  You REALLY can.  Just because YOU feel that PhotoShopping a d*ck in a woman’s mouth means someone is a misogynist doesn’t make it so.  It’s just how you decide to view it.  If we set down your rule as THE rule, suddenly nobody can do ANYTHING that might hurt someone’s feelings, and there goes every off-color joke, MAD magazine satire, newspaper comic strip, and certainly every Hustler magazine.  I think I’ll side with freedom of expression here, and my earlier claim that people who are so easily offended need to stop and consider whether something that offends them was INTENDED to offend or not.  I’m certain the Hustler thing was not intended to offend feminists.  It was intended to insult a woman Larry Flynt doesn’t hold in high esteem.  Oh, well.  Get over it.  Move on.  There’s more to life than wallowing in that.

          Now, send me a picture of you, and I’ll PhotoShop something in your mouth, and all the while I’ll promise you I support your right to voice your opinions even though I don’t agree with them.  And on that you can be certain.

          • amycas

             You can, but you’d be lying. Also, I would be just as pissed if they did it to a man. Mainly because when a man is called a “cocksucker” it’s implying he’s gay–which denigrates gay men everywhere.

        • Kodie

          Well, it’s a crude way to say “shut the fuck up,” isn’t it, it’s also a little rape-y, but nobody actually stuck a dick in her mouth. If you’re a public figure, you have to assume you will be the subject of criticism, and not just nice, polite criticism, and not just fair, logical criticism, or criticism that gives you a chance to respond or approve of images posted of you in a public medium.

          I don’t think it’s misogynistic just because Hustler does porn, or that S.E. Cupp is a woman. I think it’s actually anti-feminist to protect poor little wimmenfolk like S.E. Cupp against criticism. I am not saying go ahead, shove a dick in her mouth to shut her up, figuratively or literally. But she says things and not everyone agrees with her. Hustler makes fun of people and gets straight to the point. Is the issue here that she’s a woman and therefore unable to defend herself? I guess this is not how they would represent silencing for a man (I don’t know, I don’t read Hustler, do I?), as simulated gay fellatio is probably not what their audience would like to see, even in a commentary.

          I am a feminist, my take on it is this is a little misogynistic, I had forgotten all about S.E. Cupp until a few days ago, and mostly this post is about how a porno magazine posted a photoshop of a public figure with a dick that was never actually in her mouth, and, oh, the public figure just happens to be an atheist, which does make this post off-topic for me here. Should we be upset about what Hustler did? Is this newsworthy? Maybe, and maybe. If Hustler does this all the time, are we going to get more of these kinds of posts, or just that S.E. Cupp is an atheist that’s what is important about this one especially? I don’t give a shit! I agree with a bunch of people, this is an article that pretends we all care about the same shit and should all be outraged at a porn magazine. This post and the other ones about female atheists getting groped at atheist conventions are unrelated by atheism, the latter being an appropriate newsworthy topic of discussion here, and this post topic being appropriate somewhere else but not here.

          Is that clear enough for all you calling everyone a misogynist just to rant?

          • IndyFitz

             Wow.  Nicely said.

      • snoofle

        ‘feminists seem to be unable to separate two things’ – ALL Feminists?  Just the ones you disagree with?  Feminism is not a monolith – so this statement is pretty pointless.

        • IndyFitz

           Your statement is pretty pointless, and yet another attempt to sidetrack the discussion and paint people you disagree with as misogynists.  Try reading the posts here.  I am not misogynistic in any way, but if all you have to contribute to this is baseless finger-pointing, then you’re not offering much.

          Without a doubt, I should have said “radical feminists” in that post, but probably assumed that was obvious given the ongoing discussion.  But I’ll own that I should have worded it better, even though I suspect you won’t own that you knew damn well that was my intent and you’re just trying to skewer me as a misogynist.  I’m sorry you feel the need to do that.

          As for your statement that feminism is not a monolith — did you actually READ the original post here?  The poster clearly outlined some pretty monolithic feminist assumptions — that the Hustler bit was mean and bad and horrible and women everywhere were somehow reduced to less then they truly are because of it.  Do you agree that THAT isn’t feminist monolithism?  Because if you do, you have little right to accuse me of it; and if you don’t, you’re a hypocrite.  Is there another option I’m missing?  Please, enlighten me.

          • Patterrssonn

            So just the feminists you disagree with then.

            • IndyFitz

               I disagree with you, because you don’t seem capable of rational thought or reading the entire discussion.  But you’re cute when you try!

          • amycas

            snoofle didn’t call anyone misogynist. 

      • TheAnalogKid

        Larry Flynt is a staunch supporter of feminist rights. So the word feminist now means that women are a collection of holes for penises? 

        • IndyFitz

          If I read that right… how the hell did you go from Observation A to Conclusion Z like that?  That makes no sense at all.  So are you claiming that, because Hustler depicts women sexually, Hustler must therefore be misogynistic?  Huh?

          • TheAnalogKid

            I don’t think Flynt is a staunch supporter of feminist rights. I think Flynt is a staunch supporter of selling pornography. Does pornography do anything other than portray women as purely sexual objects?

            • amycas

               Actually, I’m a feminist and I’m sex positive. I have no problem with pornography in general. Granted, there is sexist pornography that exists. But there are also sexist movies and books, that doesn’t mean I’m against movies and books.

              • TheAnalogKid

                What pornography isn’t sexist?

    • LeftSidePositive

      And the fact that Hustler objectifies women IS A PROBLEM.  It is not a force of nature, it is a socially-constructed privilege that makes men think they are entitled to devalue their sex partners.

      • IndyFitz

         Well, to be fair, men are entitled to devalue their sex partners.  And their sex partners are entitled to devalue them.  If said devalued sex partners choose to remain involved people like that, that’s their problems and their bad choices.

        I’d say if the women accepting paychecks to be objectified in Hustler’s pictorials and videos would stop doing it, then there wouldn’t be a Hustler in business.  How can you answer that?  Because the only logic track I can see from your argument is that women apparently can’t make decisions for themselves, and we must protect them by getting rid of such things as Hustler.  I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH THAT NOTION, although I suspect you’ll make me out otherwise, but how is that anyone’s fault but the women who pose?  Or the men who pose for magazines featuring objectified men?  Or the twin sisters who do each other and so on?  Is this all the pornographers’ fault because they enable these helpless men and women who can’t help but take off their clothes for the camera?  I just don’t see it.

        You may now lambaste me with more of your usual swearing and name calling, which definitely helps you make your case.  Just be easy on me.  I’m beginning to feel like you’re a man-hating misandrist.

        • LeftSidePositive

          Nope, no one is “entitled” to devalue their sex partners in any moral or ethical sense.  Of course, you can’t throw them in jail for doing it, but you can point out that they should be socially shunned.

          It’s not just the problems of people in demeaning or abusive relationships when they are mistreated. We have to look at their social and economic constraints. We have to look at the culture that conditions them to think they don’t deserve any better. We have to look at people like you who keep them silent by blaming them for their maltreatment.

          I can answer the economics of Hustler very easily: people frequently need cash, and can’t be too picky about where it comes from, and that will lead them to do some desperate things. People can also internalize sexism. People can also just want their own celebrity and say fuck it to everyone else. This is really 101 stuff.

          Where did I EVER say women can’t make decisions for themselves? WHERE THE FUCK did I say we should be “protecting” the models in Hustler? I said I vehemently disagree with them.  I said Hustler perpetuates harmful gender norms throughout the ENTIRE society, not just the models themselves, and I said we should exert social pressure to make positive pornography more mainstream and negative pornography more lonely on the fringe.

          And FUCK YOU to say it’s all the fault of the models.  What about the people who design the shoots, who tell the models they’ll only have jobs if they do X, Y, and Z? What about the people who write the copy about the models? What about the people who will only buy porn that objectifies and demeans women?

          And, for the umpteenth time, calling you out on your bullshit is not “misandrist.” It’s “anti-sexist-bullshitist,” which is a perfectly rational position.  If YOU think that being male is inherently intertwined with being a sexist chauvinist pig, then YOU are the one who has a poor opinion of men as a whole, and I think you can and should do better.

          • IndyFitz

             Damn, you post started off almost sensible, and I was ready for a good discussion… and you devolved into swearing and LOTS OF CAPS and being generally offensive.  There’s just no talking to you.  How much of this is performing for the masses?  Let’s meet in email and learn to be friends, and learn from each other.

            • LeftSidePositive

              It’s all performing for the masses.  You are a worthless fucking troll and you’d rather repeat “misandrist” than actually consider what I’m saying, so I’m here to show that your misogyny and your obsessive silencing of women’s concerns WILL NOT SHUT US UP.

              (And it’s pathetic of you to ignore an argument because there’s swearing in it–on the Internet, no less! What a ridiculous and transparent way to show you have no cogent rebuttal!)

              • Faq

                Do you even hear yourself?

                Right. Wink wink, nudge nudge, it is the internet so…forget it Jake, its Chinatown.

                You are a loonball. A screaching hen of a banshee loonball, and ye, I suspect you are mentally unhinged. At best you are nothing but a man hater.

                Who hurt you?

                I wish you hope and that you heal. I am here for you.

                • Kodie

                   You don’t sound very reliable or sincere, so can it, bub, or I’ll can it for you.

                • Fsq

                  Settle down Logan.

                • Kodie

                   Lol, you have no power.

                • Fsq

                  I know, my mutation is only that I dont get the spins when I stand up really fast. Its practical, but not really helpful when battling super villains.

                • Fsq

                  I know, my mutation is only that I dont get the spins when I stand up really fast. Its practical, but not really helpful when battling super villains.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  1) AGAIN, claiming mental illness to shut down a woman who disagrees with you is sexist, ESPECIALLY when she has been point-by-point demolishing every idiotic thing you say.

                  2) “Hen” is sexist, so fuck off.

                  3) Do you have ANY idea how stupid you look when you keep throwing around “manhater”?  Here’s an idea: instead, just say “I have no interest in understanding your arguments so I’m just going to make cheap shots to discourage you from posting because NO GIRLS ALLOWED!” It would be more accurate.

                  4) It is presumptuous to assume that someone seeks to address injustice and social prejudice only because they’re “hurt.”  Also, there are many people in the world (I am fortunately not one of them) who have been victims of violent crime and had their career opportunities severely diminished because of sexism and misogyny–for you to insinuate that the fact that someone might be “hurt” invalidates their argument is callous in the extreme.

                  5) I am quite well, thank you.  Telling trolls that they’re total fucking shitheads is actually perfectly functional behavior, and it’s necessary to make this community more productive for the rest of us.

                  6) You are a condescending, insincere wankstain.

                  7) Why did you change your name?!

            • amycas

               What exactly is wrong with swearing?? You keep getting upset by it, and I don’t understand why.

              • Coyotenose

                Complaining about Internet swearing is a defense tactic used in all sorts of debates by people who can’t defend their own position. It’s a classic red herring, and a sign that even the poster thinks his opinions are hollow.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-A-Anderson/100000016895400 John A. Anderson

    I didn’t see this kind of reaction from the left when Hustler published an ad parody of Jerry Falwell “confessing” to incest with his mother in an outhouse. Being outrageous is what Hustler does. I don’t know what this has to do with an atheism blog.

    • Patterrssonn

      Jerry Falwell was caught having sex with his own mother in an outhouse?

    • IndyFitz

       My repeated points exactly.

  • Mike

    OK, I hate to admit I know this, but I’ve seen issues of Hustler where they portray male politicians they dislike as literal assholes – you know, they photoshop the face of said person on top of a hairy butt being spread wide apart. I have to agree with one of the previous posters – this is Hustler we’re talking about. I just find it difficult to muster outrage on this one, sorry.

    • IndyFitz

       Careful, Mike… if you can’t muster outrage, or you disagree with the original post, they’ll likely label you a misogynist.  And a racist.  And a tax cheat.  And a Communist.  And having halitosis.  And wearing stripes and polka dots with plaid!  Anything to demonize you and steer the argument to anything bu the facts!

      • http://conuly.dreamwidth.org/ Conuly

         Pot, meet kettle.

        • Fsq

          Wow. Pithy.

        • IndyFitz

          Mysterious!  You are amazing.  Do you have anything to contribute?  I mean, at all?  That doesn’t involve just trying to stir up trouble with no real input?  Yeah, I didn’t think so.  You must be a misogynist!

  • http://skratte.etsy.com skratte tastic

    Flynt, the Hustler publisher, told The Daily Beast, “As the result of our publishing an ad parody of political pundit S.E. Cupp that depicted her having oral sex, the prudish and delusional right wing has accused me and my magazine of being sexist and waging a war on women. That’s absurd. The picture was clearly labeled as satire. It was intended as humorous commentary about her politics. We stated that no such image of Ms. Cupp actually exists. Secondly, the feature, which we run every month, has previously depicted such male luminaries as Mario Cuomo, Dan Rather and, most recently, my friend Bill Maher. How misogynistic or sexist is that?” – http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/larry-flynt

    • Pluto Animus

       Likely reply:

      “It’s not misogynistic or sexist, but it IS homophobic!”

    • http://conuly.dreamwidth.org/ Conuly

       Translation: We SAID it was a JOKE, so people aren’t ALLOWED to get UPSET. It was JUST a JOKE.

      • http://skratte.etsy.com skratte tastic

        Translation: Your translation sucks.

        The very fact that people are allowed to see things that upset them is the very nature of the fight that Mr. Flynt has waged since he began his battle. The first amendment, as he states, isn’t in place to protect only the speech you approve of. If we weren’t allowed to say and print offensive things, the first amendment would have nothing to protect and be useless.

        He’s all about pushing buttons… but remaining balanced at the same time. It’s satire. If you find it funny, good. If you find it offensive… even better. 

        • Fsq

          Abso-fucking-lutely….

          The First Amendment MUST be adhered to when we are the most uncomfortable, otherwise, all is lost.

          • amycas

            You know this has nothing to do with the first amendment though. Critisicm is NOT the shutting down of free speech, it is the exercising of free speech.

        • amycas

          Yeah, nobody ever called for Hustler to be shut down by the government. Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism. I don’t understand why you guys keep bringing that up.

  • jdm8

    They showed Obama with a penis in his mouth. I can’t help but think this article should be reconsidered and a couple arguments amended or removed.

    • amycas

       yeah, I would call that homophobic and sex-negative. In fact, pretty much all of these “satires” seems either sexist, homophobic and sex-negative in general.

  • Aaron Scoggin

    As an outspoken masculist, it’s good to see women finally being put in their place. And it’s hilarious.

    • http://www.facebook.com/brittany.brelsford Brittany Brelsford

       What place is that? Do I need to be raped again because you want to perpetuate your attitude that I belong either in the kitchen or on my back with a dick in my mouth like ms cupp?

    • Onamission5

      Where is my place, exactly? Here I thought my place was wherever I fucking wanted it to be, but do enlighten me, oh great penis having one, as to where I should stand and what I should say.

    • JamesM

      Nope. Go away.

    • http://www.SketchSepahi.com/ SketchSepahi

       Captain! I measure the energy signature as exceeding 1.21 gigatrolls! Bridge collapse is imminent. Quick! We must reverse the polarity!

      • Fsq

        Hah! That was funny!

        • Coyotenose

           Hate-filled troll.

          • Coyotenose

             My apologies on that one at least. I thought you were responding to the original troll, not SketchSepahi.

      • IndyFitz

         BWAHAHAHAHAAAA!!! And yet many took it completely seriously.

        Aren’t atheists supposed to be better with logic, reason, and common sense?  How do people react violently to that sort of thing without considering it first?

        People like that make me embarrassed to be an atheist.  I might have to change my affiliation to “negative deist” just so I don’t get lumped in with those f*cking Martians.

        • Coyotenose

           Crybaby cretin troll.

          • IndyFitz

             I bet you’d look good with a d*ck in your mouth, Coyotenose.

            • Onamission5

              WTF?

              So now the conversation has devolved not just to impudent name calling and gendered insults, but to implied threats of sexual violence in order to shut someone up? Seriously? Take a step back and check yourself.

              • Fsq

                You get just as snarky and snippy. Dont play mightier than thou.

                • Onamission5

                  Did I say not to get snarky and snippy? No. My protest is toward both name calling and implied sexual violence in an effort to demean someone and make them shut up.

                • IndyFitz

                   If you REALLY think anything like that is going to make someone shut up, I think you might live in a fantasy world.  Here, I’ll call you a zoogly bindlewaffle!  Go ahead, try your hardest not to respond!  (See, if you do respond, you prove my point; if you actually shut up, everyone benefits.) :-)

                  Careful now!  There are smileys involved!  That means I’m just kidding around! :-)

                  Godless loves you!  And so do I.

              • IndyFitz

                 Find a mirror.  What, do I have to put stupid smiley faces after every sarcastic comment in case people are actually THAT detached that they can’t see it?  Is Poe’s Law truly in effect?

                Come on… the whole thing began with a PhotoShopped image of a woman with a d*ck in her mouth. :-)

                I thought the comment was snarky and amusing, given the relation to the original subject matter. :-)

                I love smiley faces because they somehow let me get away with anything. :-)

                My sarcastic comments matter when I use smiley faces so nobody gets offended. :-)

                Seriously, Onamission5… the name-calling began when angry people started accusing me and others of being misogynists — unjustly, because they didn’t like our reasonable comments that this post had little or nothing to do with the point of this blog.  If you’re going to accuse people of name-calling and all that, perhaps you should read the discussion here today and see who began slinging mud and calling names first — without sarcasm, with clear intentions to accuse others of being something they were not.

                Don’t be offended by that, Onamission5… it’s all right!  I have one of these: :-)

                • LeftSidePositive

                  Fuck off, you misogynistic douchebag. :-)

                  Just saying something is a joke does not excuse you for the harmful cultural attitudes you perpetuate. :-)

                  Women’s concerns are more far-reaching and more relevant than you may like to admit. :-)

                  Trying to find any excuse to shut down discussion of women’s issues is misogynistic. :-)

                  Just because something isn’t personally interesting to you doesn’t mean it doesn’t belong here. :-)

                  Women already have to deal with their concerns being marginalized way too often to be duped into thinking your silencing is an isolated event. :-)

                  Again, fuck off. :-)

                • Fsq

                  Thats the spirit sugar!!!!
                  :)

                  Well played honey!!!!
                  :)

                  That wsa really good. For a girl.
                  :)

                  Nice one cutey pie.
                  :)

                  Awesome Tootsie (apolohies to D. Hoffman)
                  :)

                  Careful typing out these zingers, you dont want to break a nail!!!
                  :)

                • LeftSidePositive

                  You are a worthless fucking troll.

                  Are you proud of yourself for typing shit like that?

                  Don’t you think that the fact that those attitudes are so common might be A PROBLEM?

                  Why are you so hostile to people who object to this treatment of women?

                  Why do you think this is an acceptable way to treat women who disagree with you?

                  Aren’t you aware that practically every bully in the history of EVER has tried to pull shit and then weasel out of it with “Gosh, I was just kidding….caaaan’t you taaaaake a jooooooke?”  Well, we didn’t fall for that bullshit then and we’re not falling for it now.

                  But thanks for showing why feminist issues are so important to include on an atheist blog.

                • IndyFitz

                   I think YOU’RE quite the bully in here.  By the way, I notice you keep resorting to name calling and swearing.  Do you have anything else?  I think you might be a man-hating misandrist.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  And I think you’re a pathetic fucking tone troll who is cowardly trying to evade criticism by wrapping up his poor behavior in his identity. Fuck that shit, asshole.

                • Fsq

                  “fuck that shit, asshole” is incredibly insensitive to the gay community. So lets make a list, you are:

                  A manhater
                  Homophobic
                  Possible mentally unstable

                  Nice way to live.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  Care to cite that anywhere, dumbfuck?

                  Again, calling women mentally unstable when they outspokenly disagree with you is a blatant silencing tactic, and it’s also extraordinarily disrespectful to all the women who have been committed to insane asylums and been otherwise pathologized for disagreeing with the dominant power structure.

                  You might be amazed to discover this, but lots of men are not assholes like you.  The fact that I dislike assholes does not in ANY way mean I dislike men, because the two are not contingent.

                  And yeah, you didn’t get very far trying to Tu Quoque “motherfucker,” so you’re not going to get anywhere feigning outrage about “fuck that shit.” Sorry, but that’s pretty standard profanity, and if it’s allowed on Shakesville I’m going to have to assume there’s literally *no one* who feels zir identity is threatened by it.

                  But why don’t you stop throwing around all these cheap rhetorical tricks and actually make an argument about sexism, its relevance, its effects, and the role of its entrenchment in atheist spaces? Oh, what’s that? You mean you can’t?  Oh, I get it–that must be why you’re flinging all your shit around, hoping something will stick!!

                • Fsq

                  Manhater.

                  I wish for you the oath to find love in your heart and to work through your illness. I am here for you if needed.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  Worthless fucking troll.  You know, it should have dawned on you by now that you’re not REALLY the relevance police that you claim to be, because your REAL interest seems to be in flinging around a bunch of absurd, repetitive shit to try to shut up women who are outspoken.  Anyone who actually gave a shit about relevance wouldn’t go around and type “manhater” and “I love you” everywhere–so instead, it strongly indicates to me that all your previous griping about relevance was just hostility to women bringing up instances of sexism.

                • Fsq

                  I want only the best for you. I want you to be well and healthy, and to opeyour heart and love men.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  I love men.  What I hate are imbecilic misogynistic trolling assholes.

                • http://www.facebook.com/ellenbeth EllenBeth Wachs

                  This guy is just a needy little boy looking for your appr0val.  That is why he keeps coming back for more after getting such a smack down.

                • amycas

                  There’s nothing wrong with name-calling and swearing, when you give good reasons for the anme you are calling a person. 

                • IndyFitz

                   More name calling and swearing!  Do you have anything else?  I think you might be a man-hating misandrist.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  So, I clearly show that your pathetic attempt to weasel marginalizing gender-based insults into this discourse under the very weak guise of humor is unacceptable, and from this you conclude that I’m angry at you because you’re a man?  How about the fact that I’m angry at you because you’re weaseling gender-based insults into a discussion where you INSIST that sexism isn’t relevant to discussion, and try to get out of it with an emoticon?  That would seem to me to be a more textually-supported interpretation.

                  Oooh, whine, teh swearz! Oh noez!! Give me a fucking break, idiot.

                  By the way, when exactly did the clouds part and the angels sing and inspire you that “misandrist” must be the totally best way to shut down any and all discussion? I mean, EVERY SINGLE FUCKING REPLY?? Fuck, dude, at least try for some originality!  You don’t get extra points if you keep filling the same square on your sexist-asshat-bingo card over and over again. Because as you can see we can all see through it for the unbelievable strawmanning and cheap dodging that it is.

                • IndyFitz

                   So… you using the same “you’re a misogynist” attack every time is okay, but me worrying that you’re a misandrist is against your rules?

                  I don’t believe in angels.  But thanks for playing.

                  I think you are NOT a hater of the word “FUCK” or “DOUCHE” or several other words.  I think you love using them against men.  I worry you may be a man-hating misandrist.  But I love you and still offer my friendship.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  I’ve shown textually-based reasons WHY what you are doing is misogynistic–your reflexive dismissal of women’s concerns, your use of gender-based insults, your ignoring substantive arguments by women, your insistence that “satire” makes demeaning women okay, your inability to see the difference between sex-negative explicit material versus sex-positive explicit material, your willful and repeated misconstruction of others’ arguments, your assumption that because their priorities are different than yours they couldn’t possibly be paying attention, and so on and so on.

                  You, on the other hand have BLATANTLY IGNORED the reasons I’m criticizing you and have willfully strawmanned in insisting I object to your maleness instead of your repeated, overtly sexist behavior.

                  Are you really too stupid to know the “angel” reference was a criticism of the absurd faux-inspiration of the extraordinarily pathetic strategy to whine “misandrist” at every turn?  (By the way, this is ACTUAL satire–see, I’m using “angels” when I DON’T ACTUALLY MEAN ANGELS to make a satiric point about your lack of inspiration. In contrast, you DON’T get to claim satire when you say things you actually mean, or wish you could say in polite company, and then try to pass them off as a joke.)

                  Look: the fact that you keep repeating “I love you” when I have told you I find it belittling and inappropriate shows that you don’t respect women’s boundaries, it shows that you are using it as a gender-based insult, and it shows you are just fucking trolling to be annoying rather than intellectually honestly addressing your opponent’s points.  So fuck off.

            • Patterrssonn

              Wow you’re really not a misogynist are you,I had you pegged all wrong.

              • IndyFitz

                I think you might be a man-hating misandrist.

                • Patterrssonn

                  LOL

            • amycas

              You know, a lot of victims hear that phrase just before being raped. You should reconsider that language because it can trigger ptsd trauma.

              • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                 For me, it’s the phrase, “I know just what you need…” *shudder*

        • Patterrssonn

          “BWAHAHAHAHAAAA!!! And yet many took it completely seriously.”

          Not surprising considering poe’s law now works for the whinging of misogynist atheists.

          • IndyFitz

             You MUST be religious.  Please, stop teasing me, you beast!  Let me know your truth.

            Once again, I refer you to the true name-callers here.  Send me YOUR picture, Patterrssonn!  I’ll PhotoShop a Bible up your ass and send it back… with sarcasm! :-)

            And smileys so nobody gets offended! :-)

            And we’ll all have a laugh and move on! :-)

            With angels! :-)

    • IndyFitz

       I don’t what’s funnier… that you posted that, or that the women who responded got all offended and took it seriously.  Which totally makes my point… groups with causes taking themselves way too seriously and leaving no room for gray area in their black-and-white worlds.

      Then again, if you were actually serious…

      • Coyotenose

        You thought that it was funny, and that rape victims shouldn’t take the endemic cultural problems that led to their attacks seriously?

        Congratulations on actually being the kind of little shit that Aaron is invoking.

        • IndyFitz

           Thanks for making my point!  You REALLY jumped to THAT?  Instead of the obvious thing I thought was funny, and which I explained, was that he posted that just to troll, and everyone immediately BELIEVED HIM, took him SERIOUSLY, and lost their minds?  Grow up, kid.

          • Onamission5

            Because we all know that any time a woman doesn’t like something which is said about her, it must be because she’s hysterical, aka craaazy from the uterus, and not because what was said was grossly offensive.

            • IndyFitz

               You see, *I* can tell you’re using sarcasm… but you didn’t use smileys, so I don’t know if it counts.

              It isn’t my fault is someone is offended by something that wasn’t intended to offend her.  I think the only one today who has a right to be offended is Ms. Cupp, who ended up with a PhotoShopped d*ck in her mouth.  Everyone else is just whining.  Don’t like it?  Don’t buy it!  Don’t read it!  Don’t tack it up on your wall!  Write Larry Flynt a letter and tell him how offended you are!

              Or… or, you could do this: Accuse everyone in this discussion with whom you disagree of being a woman hater.  Yeah, that will work!  It will distract everyone from the actual discussion, make you feel better, and so on and so forth.  It’s especially effective if any reasonable person can tell that the accused woman hater really aren’t woman haters at all, because you can use the skills you learned either debating with Xian apologists or being a Xian apologist to deflect everything from the actual topic.

              Hey… smiley faces!  Don’t be offended!  Unless you’re one of those people who is accusing people of being woman haters when you know damn well they aren’t and that isn’t what this is all about.  If you ARE one of those, then I am very much trying to offend you. :-) :-) :-)  Wow, look at all those smileys!

              • amycas

                 “It isn’t my fault is someone is offended by something that wasn’t intended to offend her.”

                Intent isn’t magic. If you didn’t intend to offend somebody and they were offended, the best way to handle it is to listen to why they were offended and try to understand it from their perspective–even if at the end you still don’t think they should be offended. You don’t get to say “don’t be offended because I didn’t intend it that way.” Just the other day I was discussing something with friends and I unintentionally offended them by interrupting. They called me on it. I didn’t argue with them over it; I said sorry and listened. Then I apologized again at the end of the discussion and thanked them for their frank criticism of my behavior. I explained that I have a habit of interrupting and that I’m working on it, but I never told them to not be offended. Also, don’t tell anybody they have no right to be offended by something–it’s patronizing and condescending.

        • Fsq

          Coyote,

          I love you. I cannot hide it anymore, and I feel uou must feel the same way. We must marry. Whether you are a man or woman, it doesnt matter because our love and bond is that strong. I suggest a June wedding but I am open to suggestions. We just cant hide this anymore, nor deny it.

          While there have been others, there have not been others like you, nor will there be. In short, we must make this work.

          Until I hear otherwise, I will begin prepartions for our betrothal for next month. Until then I remain

          humbly yours in life,

          Fsq

          • Patterrssonn

            Fsq what happened to you. What’s the thing with women. I’ve read your posts on other topics and found them quite rational but women always seem to bring out this bilious rage in you.

            What is it F, you can trust me, I’m a man.

            • http://www.facebook.com/ellenbeth EllenBeth Wachs

               I’m guessing the cheerleaders made fun of him in High School and probably cornered him one day and pulled his pants down, thus taunting and tainting him for life.

              • Fsq

                Thats what you come up with? Thats the best you can do?

                Za zing, you got me….

                • IndyFitz

                   Careful, Fsq… you’re dealing with people who have no argument and are thus losing it; the only thing they seem to know is to throw out vile insults and fallacious arguments!  You’ve met your match!

                • Fsq

                  No no. They’re right. I was doing my legel best to try abd get into the panties of cheerleaders, but it never happened. I gave it my level best, but damn, those cheerleaders were too busy with the quarterbacks….those lil’ fillies were just not into anything other than the football team meatrods….

                • http://www.facebook.com/ellenbeth EllenBeth Wachs

                   Poor boys, couldn’t get dates for the prom and have been holding grudges their entire lives.

                • amycas

                  Which is it? no argument or fallacious arguments? If it’s fallacious arguments, then you’ve yet to demonstrate how those arguments are fallacious.

                • http://www.facebook.com/ellenbeth EllenBeth Wachs

                   Sounds like I hit my target. I don’t need to do anything else. You have done the work here proving what a shit you are.

          • IndyFitz

             Don’t you be cheating on me, damn it.

            • http://www.facebook.com/ellenbeth EllenBeth Wachs

              Aww, isn’t that cute. Frick and frack – tag team mysogynists. 

              • IndyFitz

                 I think you’re a man-hating misandrist.

                • http://www.facebook.com/ellenbeth EllenBeth Wachs

                   So you have resorted to the “I know you are but what am I” retort to all of the women.   LOL

                • http://www.facebook.com/ellenbeth EllenBeth Wachs

                  Resorting to the “I know you are but what am I?” defense?  LOL
                  Are you going to start typing , ” na na na na, na I can’t hear you, I’m not listening” next?

  • Shawn Magowan

    And the first link that comes up when searching Santorum is now the Wikipedia page for how his name became associated with a sex act.  I agree that the article is trash, and that it’s low brow political commentary, but don’t assume that women are the only ones trashed by idiots.  They are certainly the majority, but not the only.

    • JamesM

      Santorum made it his calling to associate himself with homosexual acts. So he got himself associated with a product of a sex act (though not necessarily homosexual).

      • Shawn Magowan

        Yes, I know.  I’m confused as to what you’re getting at though.  Are you trying to further discussion or just commenting for the sake of commenting?

        • amycas

           I believe JamesM was explaining the reason why Santorum’s name means what it does. The fact that it was also defined by the gay community could lend a hint.

      • Fsq

        You hypocrite.

  • Fsq

    Grow up writer.

    A few things….first, when did this become a feminist blog? Come on Hemant, I enjoy many of the guest posters, but this is ridiculous. If I wanted this I would go to PZ’s blog on “How to Hate Your Penis and Be Ashamed of Your Melonin”

    As for Larry Flynt, this gy has done more to defend and protect our First Amendment rughts than any five fundred feminists combined. He may be a sleaze peddler, but he has vigourously defended a right that you should be damn happy about.

    And as has been stated by another poster, it is HUSTLER Magazine. You want us to get outraged at something overtly sexual and chauvanistic when the source material is HUSTLER Magazine?!

    That is more fucked up than the ad itself.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/MrRonda-Mathews/100002819358459 MrRonda Mathews

       “That is more fucked up than the ad itself.”

      Indeed.

    • Amorey67

      Hear hear! Well said! We should support equal rights for all without allowing PC campus feminists to hitch their agenda to our lack of belief in a sky god. 

      • Kelly

        You mean the agenda for equal rights and treatment, which you claim to support.  Feminists are for equal rights and treatment. 

        • Fsq

          Wow. Talk about a false dichotomy. Sweetheart, you truly need to get up above the biew from your limited 100 feet and try it around 10000 feet.

          • Coyotenose

              I hear that using demeaning gender-based pseudo-endearments to try to
            dismiss the other person is hip and charming, and not at all shitty and
            misogynistic.

            • IndyFitz

               I hear being a snarky little kid in blog forums is all you can do, without actually offering anything useful.  Isn’t is past your bedtime?

              • amycas

                Could you point me to any post you’ve made which could be called useful? Also, calling somebody “little kid” when you have no evidence of their age/stature is demeaning to the person (as you’re using it in a way to margenalize them) and demeaning to children. I’ve known many children who are more thoughtful than you are, so assuming that someone is acting like a child in order to demean them is ageist. 

              • Coyotenose

                 Hypocrite much, admitted troll?

        • Amorey67

          It doesn’t necessarily follow that all feminists are for equal rights and treatment under the law. I’m sure some are, but many are decidedly not. Many are more than happy to claim their “equal rights” whilst exploiting their grandfathered special privileges granted to them under  the “patriarchy”.    

          • amycas

             Feminism is the belief that women are people and should be treated as such. It follows that feminists would fight for equal treatment under the law. I don’t know of any “special privileges” granted to feminists under the patriarchy. Care to elaborate on that?

      • Patterrssonn

        Well said, rights for all except women!

        • Amorey67

          You are a triumph of  cognitive dissonance.  

          • Patterrssonn

            Why are you so afraid of women? I mean the post is dumb but you’re reaction is pure hysteria. Especially your weird paranoiac rants against feminists. Have you ever wondered why women speaking up for themselves elicits such visceral outbursts?
              

            • IndyFitz

               No, it isn’t hysteria.  It was a few people saying it was silly that this post even happened here… followed by people losing their minds and accusing those people of being woman haters.  I mean, come on… how is that anything close to sane?  What, we’re supposed to just run away with our tails between our legs so the angry stompers can congratulate each other on chasing off those mean misogynists… when nobody ONCE said anything remotely misogynist?  (Well, there was that one guy who snarkily joked about putting women in their place just to be a troll, and people lost their minds… but I am fairly sure he was just trolling.  I could be wrong, I admit, but I don’t think so.)

              There was never anything here other than people pointing out that the post didn’t belong.  The fault of ignorance is on those who are ignoring the honest truth that our comments had nothing to do with hating women.  If the post had been about Hustler making fun of dogs, it wouldn’t have had a place, even though I love dogs.  Would I be labeled a dog-hater?  Oh, probably, by some. But the point remains: There was NEVER any malice intended by anyone who thought this was the wrong place for such a post.  Never any.  At least not that — I think — any rational person could see.

              But irrational people will focus on what they want to believe and make the “facts” fit their views.  Sort of like arguing with fundamentalist Christians, I suppose.

              • Patterrssonn

                Bullshit if the real issue was he posts lack of relevance likely no one would have bothered to post, certainly there wouldn’t have been all his ranting and raving about feminism. The “lack of relevance” is just the excuse for your anti feminist tirade.

                • Fsq

                  Manhater. Why are you ashamed of yiur penis?

                  I am here for you if you need help. Be well.

                • amycas

                  So Paterrsonn posts a lengthy response explaining why what you said was inaccurate and you respond by calling xir a man-hater. Also, I don’t know if I’ve ever seen Paterrsonn state xir gender, so why are you assuming xe has a penis? And how is that body-part relevant to what xe said?

    • JamesM

      It seems the people most outraged over feminist leaning articles are misogynists. And at least one misogynist racist.

      • Ejcpromo

        Fill me with your wisdom on how you arrived at that little gem there Ace.

        • JamesM

          Your misogynistic rants were big hint, skippy.

          • Amorey67

            You do so like your labels, you will not shame us into compliance by tossing the word misogynist around. So, I’ll take your road. You have every right to be a self loathing feminist lick spittle  ( PZ Myers). We have a right not to care about photo shopped fellatio. You Ace, may call a rock a fish but you will never make it swim.

            • amycas

               Have you read what Fsq and IndiFitz have said to other women in this very thread? They have used gendered-insults and pseudo-endearments (fish pants, sweetheart, big girl etc.), stated that we’d look good with a dick in our mouth, stated that we should pose nude, etc. If someone acts like an asshole, then it’s perfectly apt to label them an asshole. Likewise, if somebody acts like they hate women, then it’s perfectly apt to label them a misogynist.

              If you don’t care about this post, then why comment? Why not let those of us who do care have a productive discussion about it?

              • The Other Weirdo

                 A person may care about the post itself, but may get involved in the discussion.

                • The Other Weirdo

                   …may not care…

        • Patterrssonn

          Not sure but it may have something to do with you’re history of hysterical hate filled rants against feminism, again that’s just a wild guess.

          • Fsq

            Ranting ahainst feminism is not ranting against women. There is a difference slick.

            And not supporting feminism does not make someone a mysoginistic.

            • Grainosalt

              “And not supporting feminism does not make someone a mysoginistic”

              It does. Ether that or it means they’re ignorant as to what feminism is.

            • Patterrssonn

              I know you only have a problem with women who speak up for themselves.

              • LeftSidePositive

                “I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute.” –Rebecca West

                • Fsq

                  “fetch me another drink, this time with some ice in it sweets”

                  - a female customer at a TGI Fridays to a male waiter….

                • LeftSidePositive

                  So the fact that some women are imitating the trivializing attitudes that men have historically been socialized to adopt means–what, exactly?

                  http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

                  And great job willfully ignoring the role of systemic sexism and social privilege and how it affects our interpersonal interactions. Seriously–that’s soooo original!

                  And treating the waiter like that is assholish behavior, regardless of gender.

                • Fsq

                  “Got Milk?”

                  - The American Dairy Council

                • LeftSidePositive

                  Oh, so now you’re using pseudo-medicalization about PMS to shut down women?  Wow, you really are a sexist, pompous, intellectually incurious filthy fucking troll.

                • Fsq

                  “Wabbit season.”

                  -Elmer Fudd

                • amycas

                   I don’t think he thinks that deep. I think he’s just posting random quotes now.

                • amycas

                  As a server I would be pissed at that whether or not I was a male simply because that’s a very rude way to talk to your server.

        • Coyotenose

           Might be where you decided to massively demean the work of feminists there, Sport. You might as well have said, “Lyndon Johnson did more to advance Civil Rights than any five hundred blacks combined.”

  • http://profiles.google.com/philboid Philboid Studge

    Do candid conservative male pundits have to put up with this kind of abuse?

    Of course they do. Hustler famously raked Jerry Falwell over the coals — explicit, sexual, nasty. Yes, the Cupp article was juvenile and idiotic, but not sexist in the sense that women are singled out as targets.

    • http://conuly.dreamwidth.org/ Conuly

       But is it sexist in the WAY she’s singled out as a target? Misogyny and homophobia tend to go hand-in-hand.

  • Rhythmjones

     Dude, it’s Hustler…

  • KarlVonMox

    1.) This is hustler magazine we are talking about. As previous commenter Mike said, you have to take into consideration what was done to others they don’t like with graphic sexually explicit images regardless of sex.  This is no different.

    2.) There is little chance S.E. Cupp can do anything about this. Hustler has been down this road before and won, its constitutional and protected speech. Of course some of the feminists in the movement dont want you to hear that.

    3.) Mostly for Hemant -  I did not sign up to read a feminist blog – if I wanted that I would be reading Jezebel or something. This has nothing to do with atheism, and shouldn’t be here.

    • Kelly

      Nothing to do with atheism?  It has everthing to do with atheism.  You seem to be forgetting that women are an important part of the atheist movement.  You might want to try googling this word:  intersectionality.

      • Fsq

        You really have no way of seeing the world other than what is spoon fed to you through your agenda and groups can you?

        Atheism do es not have everything to do with your feminist agenda, and frankly, it erodes what we are trying to do because it is a distraction.

        Google atheism and see if the definition includes feminism anywhere it it.

        • Pteryxx

          Atheism by definition is *lack of* belief in a god.  Belief in a god is THE primary justification for cultural misogyny, as well as a significant means of its transmission.  Therefore, atheism considered rationally *should* be relevant to knocking down religiously constructed oppression of half the human population.

          Libby Anne writes a great deal about the influence of Christian patriarchal religion on the oppression of women, and conversely, how objecting to religious misogyny brings many women to reject religion and become atheists.  In fact she just wrote about it two days ago:

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/05/christian-patriarchy-fear-fear-fear.html 

          • Jess

            All well and good, except that Larry Flynt is an atheist, and he is the one *allegedly* being misogynistic here. This had nothing to do with the religious transmission of misogyny at all, I’m afraid.

            • Pteryxx

              And I was explaining why atheism and feminism are related, not making any claim about Larry Flynt or this particular instance.

              • Patterrssonn

                He’ll probably start being invited to speak at atheist conferences now.

                • Coyotenose

                   Judging from what I’m seeing at ERV, he wouldn’t be the worst choice.

            • Lauren Meyer

              Totally, because atheists can’t possibly be affected or influenced by any religious notions hanging around in the culture!

            • LeftSidePositive

              Really? Do you seriously not understand that cultural misogyny can perpetuate itself even after someone has renounced the religion that inspired it?!  Do you seriously not understand that people tend to be clingy about their privileges? Have you seriously not noticed that there seems to be a whole cottage industry of pseudo-evo-psych that tries to rationalize religiously- and culturally-based misogyny (and *especially* denigration of women’s sex drives!) into some pathetic just-so stories so they can keep their privilege and call it “science”?

              And, the fact that Larry Flynt is an atheist would make this issue MORE relevant to criticism from within the atheist community, not less.

        • amycas

          Well, I guess we shouldn’t even have an atheist movement then because atheism is simply about a lack of belief in a god. So, separation of church and state isn’t atheism, gay rights–not atheism. Racial minority rights–not atheism. I guess we can’t be atheists and support and talk about other issues or even issues that are somewhat related but don’t fit the exact definition of atheist. 

      • ErickaMJohnson

         This particular story is not important to atheism. S.E. Cupp’s atheism is completely unrelated to the piece Hustler did on her. They were focusing exclusively on her politics.

        • amycas

          For the purpose of this comment I’ll grant that feminism isn’t related to atheism: why does it matter? Women’s issues are important and should be discussed. Why can’t somebody who blogs about atheism also blog about other issues that are important to them? JT Eberhard blogs about atheism, but he also blogs extensively about his mental illness. Nobody complains that it’s not relevant over there. Hemant also includes posts about gay rights, nobody complains those aren’t relevant. Why are women’s issues the only ones singled out as irrelevant and not worthy of discussion on this blog?

      • Kodie

        Intersectionality is not really relevant here though. This is not a sociology blog or a feminism blog. I think it’s right for atheists to care about other issues among fellow humans, and be mindful of their personal opinions and whether or not they maintain logic across the board, not just when it pertains to the absence of a deity. This is not intersected with atheism except by chance that S.E. Cupp is an atheist who happens to be their target this time around. Was the commentary about her atheism? Larry Flynt is also an atheist. He is also the publisher of a porn magazine. So, every month, he puts forth an issue of graphic porn, is the issue with S.E. Cupp in it worth noting here for some special reason?

        Intersected would be how religions tend to be patriarchal, or politically opposing birth control, or these guys who get all handsy at the conventions. Etc… many topics. I agree that those topics and more should continue to be posted, as they are relevant, and in my opinion, anyone who considers themselves a friendly atheist should care about these things.  There are other blogs which some of us may be interested in reading all about this story. This is not an example of intersectionality, it’s casting the net out too far, issuing a particular agenda based on the faintest air of “intersectionality”. And like I said, Hustler goes after everyone, and this uproar only makes them happier, it sells their rag, which is what they want to do. It doesn’t make feminist sense to, say, care about S.E. Cupp but, you know, whatever rude shit they want to print about Sarah Palin doesn’t merit a post with over 200 (so far) comments on it in a day. I also have some idea that women are people, and people who come up in the public view are going to get criticized. We don’t go after every single criticism, even the grossly misogynistic criticisms. Rather than shield Ms. Cupp from criticism and fend off her attackers, I think, as a person, she doesn’t need any special treatment. We generally think a man can laugh it off, like Rick Santorum, someone said. What’s said about him is pretty graphic and vulgar, but I don’t hear anyone bothering to get upset on his behalf, because he’s a man. ?

        • Fsq

          Well said. Very well said indeed.

          • Kodie

            No, thanks, I’m good. 

        • amycas

           I’ve seen plenty of posts on atheist blogs castigating sexist comments about Sarah Palin. You must not be paying attention. Also, you might want to look into why Rick Santorum now has a vulgar name. The gay community defined his name as a means for empowerment when Santorum was fighting against their rights and spreading vulgar lies about gay people. This is not the same thing. This is not about a marginalized minority group empowering themselves by owning the vulgarness and aiming it at their oppressors. This is about a privileged group flexing it’s privilege to continue oppressing a marginalized group. It’s the difference between a white man calling a black man the “n” word and a black man using the term cracker to describe an ignorant racist.

          • Kodie

             I must not be paying attention. Are you going to answer every single post?

  • http://www.facebook.com/dirk.champlin Dirk Champlin

    i think its hilarious. she’s an idiot

    • LeftSidePositive

      Then criticize her for being an idiot, not for mocking her with sexual imagery.

  • Mark O’Leary

    How does Hustler even manage to rise beyond it’s “beneath-notice-or-contempt” status? Who the hell is reading it for its incisive political commentary? What’s next? An expose of kindergarten potty humor?

  • Mark O’Leary

    How does Hustler even manage to rise beyond it’s “beneath-notice-or-contempt” status? Who the hell is reading it for its incisive political commentary? What’s next? An expose of kindergarten potty humor?

    • Coyotenose

       Hustler gets recognition because Larry Flynt has actually fought and suffered quite a lot to defend Freedom of Speech in America, and Hustler was his vehicle for doing so. That he’s a smut purveyor who makes a living by degrading young women with issues is really not so important beside that.

      Of course, that has nothing to do with whether Hustler has said anything worth saying. That’s just why it and Flynt deserve to be known of.

      • Fdq

        Wow. Did you just step in it.

        You just gave one of the most condscending nd bullshit arguments that feminists themselves scream and shout against.

        You clIm that the young women that Hustler features “have issues”. Wait, what?!

        I ws told by feminists that women who choose porn are empowered and strong….but you say they have issues?

        You simply cannot have it both ways, well unless you like that, which is cool, but you have just shown you hypocrisy in spades!!!!!

        • amycas

          Many women who choose porn are empowered and strong—not all. Until the porn and sex industry is over-hauled and the power of coercion is greatly reduced in the industry, there will be victims. There is nothing wrong with shedding light on the fact that some of the women are victims.

        • Coyotenose

           I hear that if you make a massive logical fallacy based off of my post, that makes me a hypocrite rather than making you a moron.

          That Flynt makes money off of women with issues does not mean that all women in porn have issues. Whether or not porn is degrading to a particular person involved in it depends on the situation.

          The Marvel Comics character Emma Frost used to dress in lingerie as her supervillain costume. It was very similar to the way that all female employees at her base of operations, the Hellfire Club, were required to dress. Once, when an employee in a corset and stockings complained mistook Frost for another waitress and complained to her about all the degrading ogling, Frost went off on her about empowerment and owning oneself.

          The gist of it was, “Yes, you wear that outfit and it degrades you. When I wear it, it degrades THEM.”

  • Prosepetals

    I’m torn on this one.

    As a feminist, I agree that the photoshop is sexist and objectifying. (I’m kind of disgusted by some of the comments here about one having nothing to do with the other — all over the atheist blogosphere is an enormous discussion about sexism within our ranks, and we would do VERY well to remember that the subjects intersect directly, so suggesting that you don’t come here for “feminist issues” is beyond shortsighted.)On the other hand…this IS Hustler we’re talking about. They rag on both sexes pretty routinely as a matter of course (and religious affiliation has little to do with it). I’m not particularly bothered by this…and her status as an atheist isn’t necessarily relevant to me. I mean, honestly, would anyone be batting an eye if the image were of Ann Coulter?

    • Onamission5

      I have a sneaking suspicion– and don’t quote me on this because it’s just my opinion– that the poster is using one inflammatory image to highlight the other, more pervasive and insidious issue.  From claims of sexual harassment to the Worley church member, comments have surfaced that detail the extent to which anti-women statements and attitudes are tolerated within the atheist community. I think the intention is to use one grotesque picture to try and shock some sense into people who aren’t getting it.

      Unfortunately, it seems they still aren’t getting it.

      • Fsq

        Yes, by all means let us begin to formulate a set of spically accepted words. Anyone who diverges off this prescribed and arbitrary set of words shall be silenced…yes, that is wnderfully progressive.

        People like you scare me as much as the far right.

        Sweetheart.

        • Coyotenose

           Thanks for using the space bar to highlight that you’re actually just here to troll, and not to debate, slime.

          Not that anyone would have trouble figuring that out after the straw man you just pulled when you lied about Onamission’s comment.

          • Coyotenose

             *Enter key, not space bar. Been up all night. Sigh.

            • Fsq

              Hey, i can forgive that. Iam trying to figure out how to type on an iPad and it makes my typing look like a pack of spider monkeys tried typing….

              Or is that somehow homophobic to say, because monkeys are homos…..in the zoologic and taxonomic way….

              • IndyFitz

                Fsq, that was a very polite response to a person whose only ammunition is to call you “slime.”  I think you might like people who call you slime.  I don’t think you’re slime.

                • Coyotenose

                   Thanks for demonstrating that you’re either too stupid to read, or are deliberately lying about my post. Take your pick as to which it is.

        • Patterrssonn

          “People like you scare me as much as the far right.”

          Onamission5 must be a woman then.

          • IndyFitz

             Oh, you are SO SLICK.  Man, I thought there was NO WAY to work misogyny into that one, but Patterrssonn, you came through in a pinch!  Gold medal!  Although I suspect you are a man-hating misandrist.  I still love you anyway.

        • Onamission5

          So, I do not have the right to ask you not to call me something I find demeaning, and not only that, if I dare to establish personal boundaries with you, that gives you the right to abuse my boundaries by continuing to call me what I do not like to be called. Good to know.

          • Onamission5

            Not only that, but asking you not to call me by demeaning titles is the same thing as trying to relegate an entire marginalized segment of the population to second class citizenship?

            • Fsq

              No. Just you.

              • Onamission5

                That doesn’t even make sense.

                • Fsq

                  Not trying to marginalize a segment of society, just you.

                • Onamission5

                  Because?

                  Because I am not a segment of society?
                  Because I called you out on your bad behavior?
                  Because you’re almost ready to shed the vestiges of your privilege, and that scares you, so you go on the attack? 

                  You are a passionate defender of both atheists and LGBT people, Fsq. I would love to see you challenge yourself to grow enough to likewise extend your passion to joining in the defense of women.

                • Onamission5

                  Also, why do you keep changing your name? Are you trying to further muddle your part in the dicussion by distancing yourself from it, so you can go into denial mode later, or is there some other reason?

                • Fsq

                  Its because i cant tyoe for shit on this iPad and it doesnt auto recognize my sign in, so i have to tyoe it in everytime.

                  And because this is an informal blog, and I write for a living with editors, i dont proof my scribbles here…

                • Patterrssonn

                  And probably any woman who talks back to you.

                • IndyFitz

                   You man-hating misandrist.  I love you anyway.  I offer my friendship.

            • IndyFitz

               Oh, that’s just being silly.  Of course you have the right to tell anyone exactly what you don’t want to be called.  But anyone has the right to call you those things anyway.  That’s how rights work, you know.  Everyone gets them, good or bad, pleasant or unpleasant.  Isn’t that what feminists keep saying about women’s rights?  So that idea only applies to feminism?  But otherwise… you get to decide who can call you what?  Yet people on this blog today have thrown all sorts of curses and insults at people, without such rules?  I have made it clear I am not a misogynist, but that hasn’t stopping everyone from repeatedly claiming I am one.  They’ll defend their actions by saying that it’s because I clearly am one by what they twist what I say, but that’s like you saying, “Do NOT call me a spiggleniffen,” and me saying, “Okay, but your behavior shows that you are clearly a spiggleniffen, so I’m calling you a spiggleniffen.  Spiggleniffen!”

              Your rules, I know.  What’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander (gender-based metaphor unintentional, but somehow apt here)?

              I’m beginning to suspect you’re also a man-hating misandrist.  I love you anyway, and offer my friendship as I have to others here.

              • amycas

                And we have a right to no longer speak to and shun those who can’t respect our boundaries by continuing to use gendered insults. We also have a right to tell others that you used those insults and when asked to stop you continued out of spite, and those people have a right to recognize your lack of respect for boundaries and likewise shun you. That’s how rights work right? You have a right to free speech, you don’t have a right to a microphone.

        • amycas

          When you use a particular word to describe someone and it is explained over and over again why that word is offensive and inappropriate to them, and you continue using it, it shows a profound lack of respect for boundaries. When the person you are describing is a woman and the word you use is a known gendered insult/pseudeo-endearment, it shows you have a profound lack of respect for women’s boundaries.

  • dangeroustalk

    Was it sexist when they put a penis in Bill Maher’s mouth, too? Here we have people don’t know all the facts and so they assume things that aren’t the case. Hustler is known for doing this penis in the mouth thing to people of both genders. It is childish, but it is a childish magazine. btw. Perez Hilton also frequently draws penises in people’s mouths. But he only gets complaints when he does it to certain people and not others. 

    • Kelly

      And the reasons they do it is because Hustler is homophobic and misogynist.  That doesn’t make it right.

      • dangeroustalk

         I don’t think Hustler is homophobic and I didn’t say it was right. I said it wasn’t sexist for putting a dick in SE Cupp’s mouth. They are equal opportunity when it comes to putting dicks in people’s mouths. I actually called it childish.

        • Coyotenose

          If Hustler does this to men and women in this feature, then the article buttresses homophobia, but not misogyny. That doesn’t improve the situation.

          Objectively, I’m not clear on why having a penis in one’s mouth would be considered an insult. Are men supposed to think that their own genitals are so disgusting that contact with them is demeaning? That’s an insult to the man who says, “Suck my dick”, not his target.

          • Pteryxx

            The insult comes from the gender-essentialist framing that considers receiving a penis (in any orifice) to be inherently effeminate and passive, while inserting a penis  is inherently masculine and active.  Thus the intended insult is common to misogyny and homophobia, *and* erases male rape victims as a side effect.

            • b33bl3br0x

               I think, as I had mentioned above, that the “insult” originally came from the type of people at whom the satire was directed who did consider the implication that they would be sucking a penis quite possibly the worst thing in the world.  In other words, it was to shine a light on the homophobia of the targets, not didn’t necessarily demonstrate an inherent homophobia of those making the image.

              That the same insult is being used towards people now, some of whom aren’t nearly so outwardly homophobic as the original targets is probably more to do with laziness and puerile (“hehe PENIS!!”) humor than a continuing indicator of blatant homophobia by the ones making the image.

              One must also not discount the other implicit message involved: Sticking something in the mouth, like a penis, effectively prevents one from continuing to speak.  In a more mainstream publication with the same political bent it might take the form of a pacifier but would carry the same meaning.

              But hey, maybe I’m way off base and people working at Hustler do actually think penises are yucky and that sucking a cock is the most horribly insulting thing a person can do, I tend to doubt it considering the sexual nature of the magazine but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

              • amycas

                This is the most coherent response I’ve read in the comments for why one would disagree with the OP. And it didn’t try to erase women’s complaints or use gendered insults or compare the OP to a 3-year-old throwing a temper tantrum. Thank you.

              • Coyotenose

                 Nicely said.

            • Coyotenose

               Ah, gotcha. I should known that, since that’s why the “suck my dick” types have apoplectic fits when I respond by going into graphic descriptions of pleasuring their genitals: Pure fear. Poor wittle babbies.

  • JamesM

    Except that a woman was singled out as a target? Interesting.

    • b33bl3br0x

      Except that all sorts of people get singled out as targets in hustler all the time: men, women, conservatives, liberals, hell even flynt himself.  The fact that it happened to be a woman this time is otherwise irrelevant.

  • Michael

    Has anyone made a response asking what Larry Flynt would look like with a dick in his mouth? Surely the real test is if he takes it in the harmless sense of fun he no doubt claims this to be.

    • Fsq

      HUSTLER has had the image of Larry Flynt with a dick in his mouth as well. And he has been elected Asshole of the Month in the magazine numerous times throughout its history.

      • Michael

        So how is it sexist just because it’s a woman this time?

        • Coyotenose

          It’s easy for a bully or narcissist to pretend to be self-deprecating. That’s no test. The test is how one reacts when other people are making the attacks, and AFAIK, Flynt has aced that one.

  • CS42

    Lauren: Thank you for posting this article.  It’s important that we raise the level of discourse and not let this kind of hate speech slide by just because the victim is someone who wrote a book that (in part) attacks atheists.  It’s topically very relevant and important to this site.

    Hate doesn’t cease to be hate because someone slapped “satire” on to it.  (Although some people need to lookup the meaning of satire in a good literary handbook). Every loud blowhard and schoolyard bully thinks everything they say is hilarious, but the humor defense is fallacious with them, as it is here.

    Commentators who are complaining they didn’t sign up for a “feminist blog”: shame on you. Like it or not feminism and atheism are in conversation with each other, and an atheist blog is going to broach the topic once in a while. 

    I don’t see you complaining when Hemant or other contributors to this blog post supporting gay rights or other tangentially-related political movements.  Feminism is part of the battle against the same extreme religious beliefs that are intolerant of nonbelievers.  Your antipathy toward feminism isn’t going to change that, it’s just putting you on the wrong side of social justice.

    • Jess

      Gay rights are relevant to this blog because churches are trying to do a lot to prevent gay couples from being treated as equal human beings, purely on the basis of their “holy” books. This article had absolutely nothing to do with atheism or religion.

      Incidentally, it doesn’t have much to do with feminism, either. Hustler readers have since commented on this post saying that this treatment happens to men in their magazine, too. So it’s not an attack on women specifically, and whoever posted this in the first place clearly gave us a very biased view.

      And I must reiterate, atheism does not go hand in hand with any belief, besides the one it is defined by. Preaching to others where their political interests should lie and saying “shame on you” for not agreeing with them is no better than what the church does, in my opinion.

      • Kelly

        Woah, there.  Churches ARE trying to do a lot to prevent women from being treated as human beings.  Have you missed the entire raging debate on abortion and contraception?  The churches don’t want women to have any agency. 

        I am gay and a woman.  Even though I don’t sleep with men, I am still affected by decisions made by religious institutions as a woman.  Contraception isn’t just to prevent pregnancy, and if I ever get pregnant from being raped, you better believe I’m getting an abortion.

        Furthermore, so what that Hustler shows men as assholes?  Why don’t they show women as assholes?  Why did they have to shove a dick in her mouth?  The treatment of the sexes is different–asshole is not nearly as offensive as shoving a dick in a woman’s mouth as a show of male domination.   

        • Jess

          Is this post about abortion and contraception? No. Unless you consider the fact that this (unreligious) woman was slammed by Hustler for opposing contraception herself.

          Not claiming to be an expert on the backcatalogues of Hustler here, but I think you missed the post where someone commented having Obama being shown with a dick in his mouth, too. 

          • amycas

             “Gay rights are relevant to this blog because churches are trying to do a
            lot to prevent gay couples from being treated as equal human beings,”–Jess

            “Churches ARE trying to do a lot to prevent women from being treated as
            human beings.  Have you missed the entire raging debate on abortion and
            contraception?  “–Kelly

            “Is this post about abortion and contraception? “–Jess

            It’s like you’re intentionally not reading for comprehension.

        • IndyFitz

          Actually, Hustler does.  Many women have been featured as the Asshole of the Month.  And many men have been portrayed with PhotoShopped dicks in their mouths.  This has been repeated many times on this page today.

    • Jess

      Additionally, I get the impression that the author herself suspected the article to be largely irrelevant to the purpose of the blog considering she felt the need to put “conservative atheist” in the title… despite it being completely unrelated its content. 

      • amycas

         I thought she put that there as a reminder of who S E Cupp is, because otherwise I don’t think I would have remembered who she was.

    • AxeGrrl

      I don’t see you complaining when Hemant or other contributors to this blog post supporting gay rights or other tangentially-related political movements.

      I guess you haven’t been around here long enough then :)  there most definitely have been people whining about the number of GLBT-related stories Hemant features here, saying precisely the same thing some are saying here about the featuring of feminist-related stories…….“when did this place become the ‘gay atheist blog’?”   “what do gay issues have to do with atheism?”

      People apparently get whiny when Hemant chooses to feature stories that they wouldn’t choose to highlight……

      oh well.

      • Patterrssonn

        It doesn’t surprise me, but was the response this hysteria tinged?

        • AxeGrrl

          I’d say the tone was very similar ~ a weariness and frustration at having to read yet-another-story on the subject……..as well as a couple of “ive stopped reading this blog as frequently because of this” tossed in.

          • Patterrssonn

            Well hopefully Fsq and Indy will get tired and and go whinge on someone else’s blog.

            • IndyFitz

              I think you might be a man-hating misandrist.  And is this YOUR blog we’re “whining” on?  Nope.  Stop being a man-hating misandrist.

              • LeftSidePositive

                Why don’t you fucking look up what the word “misandrist” actually means, you worthless fucking repetitive troll?

                • Fsq

                  Get help.

                  I have sometime today, I would be happy to research treatment centers and getback to you.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  You have been told HOW MANY TIMES?! already that your accusations of mental illness are sexist and inappropriate.  Why the fuck do you keep doing it?  Are you TRYING to prove that you are obsessed with harassing women who are standing up for themselves? Are you determined to show so vividly that someone who claims to be totally progressive can just as well be a fucking misogynistic douche, and we’re completely right to interpret all the red flags you were flying at the beginning of this thread as such?

        • amycas

          Nope, and when people explained why it was relevant it didn’t cause a 500 comment-long post war either. They said,”oh, thanks for explaining,” and went on with their day. In fact, there are those on this very post complaining about the relevance of women’s issues to atheism who are some of the ones who explain the relevance of lgbt issues to atheism. I guess they forget that women are included in lgbt (particularly the l,b, and t parts (if you define gay as males homosexuality)). That’s the difference here.

          • Patterrssonn

            That’s too bad on a way, I was hoping these idiots would just fade back into the woodwork too.

      • IndyFitz

         But with LGBT rights being fought AGAINST by the religious folks, I’d say they have a strong place here.  And if religious folks start actively trying to shut down women’s rights, by all means that’s a discussion with definite relevance.  It just seems that a post about how Hustler is mean to women by objectifying them and sexualizing them has nothing to do with this blog.

        As I’ve said, it’s Hemant’s blog, but he invites us here to comment, or else he’d turn off commenting.  He doesn’t.  We comment.  We’re a community.  I can’t see how it’s unreasonable to point out how silly this post was, as it has no atheist relevance.  That doesn’t make us misogynists at all.  If the post were about Hustler making fun of kittens and I voiced opposition to it even being here, should cat-lovers deduce I’m a cat hater?  I hope not — I have six cats!  But such a post would have no purpose here.

        It isn’t a question of whether feminism is relevant, or whether sexual objectification is bad — it’s a question of “Why is this here?”  As I’ve said, if atheists wandered into feminist forums and posted topics about atheism with no feminist purpose, would they be right to question the validity of it’s appearance?  I’d say absolutely!  And that wouldn’t make me a religious person, that’s for sure.

        • Patterrssonn

          It’s odd you’re right about it initially not being relevant but ironically the insane over response to her article has ended up highlighting the virulent antagonism towards women by many atheist men and so retroactively making her article very relevant.

          • IndyFitz

             I think you’re a man-hating misandrist.  You should seek help for that.

        • AxeGrrl

          As I’ve said, if atheists wandered into feminist forums and posted topics about atheism with no feminist purpose, would they be right to question the validity of it’s appearance? I’d say absolutely!

          Given the history of the antagonistic relationship between females and religion, I think one could validly say that an atheism-focussed comment on a feminist board AND a feminist-focussed comment on an atheist blog are BOTH relevant/on-topic in general.

          I certainly understand why many are scratching their heads about this particular story, but about the connection between atheism and feminism?  not so much.

        • amycas

           “But with LGBT rights being fought AGAINST by the religious folks, I’d
          say they have a strong place here.  And if religious folks start
          actively trying to shut down women’s rights, by all means that’s a
          discussion with definite relevance. ”

          Religions are doing that, but again, it’s not just a problem with religion. It’s an endemic cultural problem. Do you have any reason why they shouldn’t post about an endemic cultural problem?

          I’ve seen plenty of feminist blogs that have had guests posts about atheism, nobody got pissed off and they ahd a good discussion about the intersectionality of atheism and feminism. I don’t see why people are getting so bent out of shape about this. If they want to say that the OP is wrong and Hustler isn’t sexist, then by all means, make your argument. But don’t come on to somebody else’s blog and tell them that what they post is irrelevant. It’s their blog, anything they post is relevant.

    • LeftSidePositive

      Holy shit, I fucking love this post.  Great stuff!

  • http://www.facebook.com/AnonymousBoy Larry Meredith

    Sounds kinda prudish to expect sexual fantasies to be politically correct and with the utmost respect.

    • IndyFitz

       Well, it IS a typically Christian rant, since we’re all supposed to not covet and all that.  Fantasies are not allowed!

    • LeftSidePositive

      That’s your privilege talking.

      Also, this is not a “sexual fantasy.”  This is a public mockery of someone for the purposes of humiliating them, and it is printed in a major sex publication in order to explicitly promote these sorts of attitudes about women.

      Moreover, it’s not “prudish” to say sex should be respectful. If anything, it’s the opposite–people who are insecure about their own sexuality have to project their own frustrations on sexually active women and then treat them disrespectfully.

      • http://www.facebook.com/AnonymousBoy Larry Meredith

         The label of the article is “Celebrity Fantasy”.
        And while it’s purpose does seem to be to humiliate someone publicly, the same is done in Hustler to men. So tell me why it’s sexism if it’s done to women but not if it’s done to men. I’m in favor of equal opportunity. It seems to me way too often that we’re expected to treat women with more respect and dignity than men.

        • LeftSidePositive

          Oh, so just because it purports to be a “Fantasy” means we take it at face value? Even you apparently don’t believe that.

          There’s a lot more history in women’s sexuality being used to discredit them…when you use a loaded tactic, you are owning how it’s loaded. Also, as others have pointed out, there’s a lot of homophobia in the way they humiliate men, and homophobia and sexism are two sides of the same coin: men are humiliated by being treated as “feminine” because it’s meant to be lesser, and being sexually used is considered “feminine,” as is being gay.

          • http://www.facebook.com/AnonymousBoy Larry Meredith

            So it’s okay to be sexist towards men because it doesn’t have a loaded history. Thanks for making that clear for me.

            • LeftSidePositive

              Sexism refers to the institutionalized cultural attitudes that women are inferior to men. Therefore it is not possible to be “sexist” against men. I think the word you’re looking for is “sexualizing.” And I might further point out that in my comment I said the penis-Photoshopping of men is homophobic (and sex-negative), and I am also opposed to it.

              • http://www.facebook.com/AnonymousBoy Larry Meredith

                You’ve found a way to tell yourself that men can be insulted, degraded and humiliated relentlessly based on their gender without it being sexist. Good for you. One might think you’re actually being sexist against woman with such a remark though, as you’re assuming women are so inferior that only they can be affected by institutionalized cultural attitudes.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  You don’t understand the definition of “sexist.” Sexism does not refer to any gender-based prejudice or put-down. It refers to the entire constellation of attitudes in which women are denigrated with respect to men.

                  Also, a man who is photoshopped with a penis in his mouth isn’t degraded *because of his gender.* Maybe by making claims about his orientation, which may or may not be accurate, unlike women, who are definitely women, and the simple fact of their womanhood is used against them. This is why it is homophobic on men, but not sexist, because our culture reinforces the attitude of sex debasing WOMEN.I never said that men can’t be affected by institutionalized cultural attitudes (but sexism is a SPECIFIC subset of cultural attitudes–ones denigrating women). I believe men can be adversely affected, and I believe the homophobia displayed in the penis-Photoshopping of male figures IS WRONG.However, it isn’t “sexist,” because that’s not what the word means.This isn’t hard: “both thing A and thing B are wrong; thing B has an additional layer of baggage that can make it especially harmful for some people.”

                • http://www.facebook.com/AnonymousBoy Larry Meredith

                  and when men are denigrated with respect to women, what do you call that? Do you do some mental gymnastics to find a way in which it’s actually denigrating women?

  • http://www.facebook.com/ellenbeth EllenBeth Wachs

     You don’t seem to get the feminism and atheism are necessarily interconnected due to the fact that most of the misogyny promoted in society stems from the patriarchal privilege given to men through religion.

    The only reason I can see a man wanting to complain about having to read about how not to be a sexist is that he wants to continue to do so without feeling discomfort.

    It is ridiculous you are whining about Hemant posting a blog that decries the objectification of women.  If he had posted about how an arab woman was raped and abused for simply showing her face or leg, would that be a feminist blog?

    • http://gloomcookie613.tumblr.com GloomCookie613

      I’m a woman and I’m complaining that this “article” is poorly researched, sensationalist garbage. It’s PC overload BS and I agree with those who feel it doesn’t make sense to post tabloid quality BS filler here. I believe in equality, but that doesn’t mean I have to support stupidity, laziness, or poor quality just because it’s got the word “feminism” in the story. Sorry if that just pissed all over your man-hater parade.

      • http://www.facebook.com/ellenbeth EllenBeth Wachs

         Where the fuck do you get “my man hater parade?” I am not even addressing the basic premise of the article, I am addressing the complaints that it shouldn’t have been posted here to begin with.  Sorry to piss all over your premise.

        • IndyFitz

           Why is it that all you man-hating misandrists resort to swearing and name-calling?  I love you.

          • http://www.facebook.com/ellenbeth EllenBeth Wachs

            You are seriously complaining about  the use of the word “fuck”
            Fuck off you fucking ridiculous fucking idiot.

            • Fsq

              That is SO insensrive to idiots out there. Idiots struggle daily and you mock them with your words. You should be ashamed of insulting the idiot community.

              However, you can change and heal. I am here for you should you need help.

              With love.

          • amycas

             Where did EllenBeth call anyone any names in that post? She used the word “fuck,” but so what?

      • IndyFitz

        Nicely said.

  • http://gloomcookie613.tumblr.com GloomCookie613

    I might be outraged if Hustler didn’t do this sort of thing regularly, to both genders. To answer your question: “Do candid conservative male pundits have to put up with this?”

    Maybe read the magazine, research your ideas before spouting, and you’d realize: Yes, at Hustler they are treated that way too. Liberal guys and gals, conservative guys and gals. All are freely mocked and made fun of. Again, you’d know this if you did some research first instead of going off based on one image. But hey, don’t let facts stop you, OP! You keep on churning in your outrage like a “persecuted” Christian that had their courthouse nativity taken down.

    • Fsq

      This x1000.

      Well said

    • ChildofParadise

      GloomCookie is, as ever, the voice of reason here.

      “Do candid conservative pundits put up with this abuse?  I think not.”

      …she clearly hasn’t ever taken a media law class or at least isn’t a fan of Woody Harrelson.  How could anyone NOT know about the Falwell case?  I mean if Falwell didn’t fit the bill for candid conservative, I sure as hell can’t think of who would!  I think Flynt would simmer at the implication that he was anything but a liberal.  Well… except for that time that he tried to run as a republican…  But that was him trolling as usual, just like as he was doing in this piece with Ms. Cupp.
      This article… is a load of bullshit.

  • http://www.SketchSepahi.com/ SketchSepahi

    What? A porn magazine is objectifying women?! Well polish my monocle and press my trousers! Whatever will they think of next?

    • Fsq

      I know, I keep thinking of Captain Renard in Casablanca yelling “shocked. i am shocked to see gambling in here”

      • http://www.SketchSepahi.com/ SketchSepahi

         “Gentlemen. You can’t fight in here. This is the War Room!”

        • Fsq

          Ahhhhh Kubrick’s best!!!!!

  • Bob Becker

    Hustler doing something both sexist and classless ranks right up there, as news, with “Sun to Rise In East Tomorrow” and “Vatican Chooses Catholic as Next Pope.”  This was not worth noticing on FA.   Don’t feed the trolls.

  • b33bl3br0x

    Considering that Hustler has been doing this particular sort of commentary for years, and that it is received by both genders, in fact usually received by men, I can’t see this as singling out women.

    “Do candid conservative male pundits have to put up with this kind of abuse? I think not.”

    Then you’d think wrong.  They do have to put up with this kind of abuse, as do liberal male pundits and liberal female pundits, and politicians, and preachers, and actors, and pretty much anyone in the public who espouses objectionable, stupid, or controversial views.

    I enjoy the guest posts on the blog, however, in this case, if the author thinks this is a singling out of women, the author is unfamiliar with the facts.  Strictly speaking this is not a singling out of women but an example of equal treatment (with the possible exception of the use of the word “cute”; in a porno magazine whose main demographic is men, the men they lampoon are not typically referred to as “cute”).  Remember the similar run about Falwell which had him confessing to losing his virginity to his mother in an outhouse? Where’s the substantive difference? Because in 1983 they couldn’t use photoshop to create an image of Falwell having sex with an older woman in an outhouse?

    • http://www.SketchSepahi.com/ SketchSepahi

      I take your point that women aren’t being singled out from having a dick photoshopped into their mouth. However, don’t you think it’s at least some ways removed from equal opportunity objectification considering that presumably no-one has female genitalia photoshopped into their mouths? It doesn’t seem like a complete stretch to say that there’s at least some association going on between male virility and social dominance. No one, to my knowledge, is being taken down a notch by the forced submission of pleasuring a vagina. I think that’s telling. But then again maybe that’s just a testament to Hustler’s male demographic.

      • b33bl3br0x

         That’s a fair point I suppose but after thinking about it I’ve come up with a few things.

        Principally, the initial stages of this satire were almost certainly directed at people who themselves would think it was the most horrible of insults to suggest that they would be sucking a penis.  In the interim I think that the reason such a thing hasn’t surface since is due to two things, first is laziness (it has worked as a joke in past so why bother changing it) the second could be an issue of convenience.  For the purposes of photoshopping a sexual organ onto a picture of someone’s face, a penis simply works better.  Why? Because pictures of people into which you can insert the image of a penis are far more common and easier to do.

        For example, the shot you’d need of the person being mocked would have to be such a configuration that you could insert the image of the woman into it without obscuring their face (an image like this would need to include the legs and pelvis at least). I suppose an image of someone bowing could be used in this fashion, or a picture of the person in profile but that would reduce the identifiability of said person.  Additionally, the picture would ideally contain the subject with their tongue at least partially protruding from their mouths, though I suppose that could be photoshopped on as well. 

        On the other hand photshoping a penis into someone’s mouth, you can have a mostly front on shot (which makes them more identifiable) and all you need is an image that has them with their mouth open, and for that purpose you can simply use a single frame of footage when the person is speaking.  For the penis you don’t need to include testicles or an part of the rest of the man, so you odon’t need to worry about obscuring the face of the subject.

        Finally, I think that putting the penis into the mouth makes another point.  The penis in the mouth effectively renders the person unable to speak, essentially putting a cork in it.

        However, I think it would be perfectly in line with the spirit of this satire to have a woman who’s virulently anti-homosexual and photoshop a picture to make it look like she’s perfoming oral on another woman.

  • IndyFitz

    Oh, please, people. Hustler has been doing things just like this for DECADES.  The same kinds of photo fakes, the same kinds of disclaimers.  But now that it’s one of our own atheists, it’s worthy of shaming Hustler?  This makes atheists sound like conservatives all!  Yeah, we get it, it’s mean and bad to objectify women.  So don’t read it!  And posting this and making more people aware of it only popularizes it.  How the heck have atheists turned into whiny do-gooders seeking to protect women from mean old objectifying men?  Sheesh.

    • http://www.facebook.com/ellenbeth EllenBeth Wachs

       I have never, once, considered S.E. Cupp as “one of our own”  I think she is wholly a phony waiting for the right moment to “find jesus” and make her pappy happy.  I don’t care that Hustler did this.

      I care that people (read men) are here whining that this has turned into a “feminist” blog, Oh Horror! and that they will have to read about women’s issues from time to time.

      Nobody is asking you or anyone else to “protect women” from “mean old objectifying men”

      We don’t want your protection. We want respect and equality.  How do you turn giving that to women into being “whiny-do gooders?”

      • Patterrssonn

        This is exactly the issue. Any other article as pointless as this would have been routinely ignored but because the issue is feminism, its become an excuse for sad whingers like FSQ to complain about women in the clubhouse.

        • Fsa

          Uou are really deluded. I mean, off the charts our there. And you are the prime example “you are either with us 100percent or you are against us”. The last time I heard that was from george W. and he scared me as much as you do. You also have no capacity to separate fact from your perceived notions. You might as well just read tea leaves or horoscopes to come to your conculsions, they have about as much merit.

          • IndyFitz

             You nailed it.  There’s definitely a feeling of “With us or against us” from those accusing us of being woman haters.  There isn’t even any basic rationalization for that deduction, not even one bit.

            “It’s raining out.  I hope I put the car windows up, as I don’t want my upholstery wet.”

            “YOU HATE RAIN, YOU BASTARD!”

            Huh?!

            • amycas

               “There isn’t even any basic rationalization for that deduction, not even one bit.”

              That would seem the case when you ignore every post and just type out “man-hating misandrist” in your reply to everything. If you could go through and write a point-by-point rebuttal of just one post, I might take you seriously.

        • Kodie

           But it’s not just men who don’t like it. I’m certainly glad that some women are saying it too. Women should want better quality! I haven’t been hanging around here too regularly, but I did notice that Hemant posted about Penn Jillette a day or so ago, and all the people who responded were pretty angry about that, and not just women. That didn’t turn into a shitstorm. I didn’t see any fits of whining in threads about the gropers at the atheist conferences, maybe I didn’t stick to reading the comments long enough, but from what I saw, everyone was concerned about it and wanted to do the right thing. I don’t like it that every brush with feminism has to turn into a shitstorm, and so far, I haven’t noticed it. It’s just that this post is so pointless, everyone should complain about it. I haven’t seen all the guys saying horrible things about women or feminists in the responses, just getting to the point about how pointless this particular post happens to be.

          As they say, “shut it down!”

          • amycas

            There were plenty of assholes in the “gropers at atheist conferences” posts. Did you not read the comments?

            Generally, I’ve noticed that when something is really off-topic of not of actual interest to the vast majority of people, they just skip that post without comment. And on the Penn Jillette post, I think a lot of the complaints were because many people don’t like him, not because the post was irrelevant. I could be wrong though.

            And I don’t believe you are being truthful when you said you hadn’t seen any guys saying horrible things about women or feminists in the responses. On this thread alone women have been told to pose naked, that they’d look good with a dick in their mouth, been called fish pants and other gendered insults, been called mentally ill, been accused of throwing temper tantrums, and they’ve been routinely ignored and responded to with rote repetitions of “misandrist” and “you need help, I love you though.” What does it take for you to think a response is horrible?

            • Kodie

               No, I didn’t follow that thread about the gropers very long. It’s shameful that such behavior has been, uh, tolerated?, and something should be done about it, sure, but I don’t go to conferences, and I didn’t post anything in that thread, so sorry, I didn’t follow the rest of the comments after a 1st or 2nd pass. The people who objected to Penn Jillette announcement was because he is a sexist. Nobody started a scene about it or defended him. The few who commented were not as happy to see the post as Hemant was to post it, specifically noting him as a sexist.

              At the time I wrote the post that you’re responding to, “I don’t believe you are being truthful….,” well, go ahead and call me a liar. That’s honest, right? I posted that comment before things got out of hand. So go back in time and call me a liar, because that’s what you want to think of me? I still think this post is out of place, unless we’re going to call attention to every issue of Hustler. After this thread, I’m not that interested in this blog anymore. UF has had something of a drought of activity that I was looking for someplace else, and I knew FA existed but kind of kept it off to the side. If you want to call me a liar for also not noticing sexist comments in other threads, it’s because I haven’t been reading FA for very long, and I’m probably not going to stick with it. I don’t think it’s just this thread, it’s just a little too…, I don’t know. It doesn’t really need my input; nothing on the internet really does.

              • amycas

                All of the posts said they were from 2 or 3 days ago and I set up Disqus to read from oldest to newest. Since your post showed up after all the others which I referenced, I assumed you had written your post after all of the ones I referenced had been posted. I assumed you would have seen those since they show up before yours on my thread. If I was wrong, I apologize, and you can just look at the posts I referenced as examples of sexists saying horrible things to women.

                “If you want to call me a liar for also not noticing sexist comments in
                other threads, it’s because I haven’t been reading FA for very long,”

                I was only referring to this post, since I clearly had no idea whether or not you had read any others (I even asked you if you had read those other comment threads).

      • IndyFitz

         EllenBeth, it does seem I should have been using those smileys in my earlier posts, since my sarcasm is always unnoticed.  I don’t consider her “one of our own” but it seems that the only possible justification to this post being here at all is because Cupp is an atheist.  But I don’t believe that is the case.  I think the poster was merely using this as a launching point for radical feminism.  I don’t have ANY PROBLEM with feminism.  I have a problem with this being a blog about atheism, and that I think the connection of Cupp being an atheist is tenuous at best.  The poster did not focus on Cupp’s atheism, but instead how Hustler was mean and such for objectifying her and all that.  That just doesn’t seem the point of this forum.

        If you had read this, you’d have seen not just men, but women as well complaining.  Do you immediately jump to “all men are misogynist” like others seem to?  If so, that is unfortunate, because all men are not, and I am CERTAINLY not.

        This isn’t about whether we should read about women’s issues from time to time.  It’s that this isn’t the Friendly Feminist blog.  There is no real atheism connection here, and as I said the poster made it clear her purpose with this post was about feminism, NOT about atheism.  If atheists started posting atheist-centric posts with nothing to do with feminism in feminist blogs, and some feminists complained, how do you think the atheists would be treated if they told all the feminists they were atheist-haters and should shut up and get a dose of atheism every now and again (horrors!)?

        Lastly, how did you turn your response into accusations that we are trying to protect you, and you don’t need protection, and you want respect and equality?  Again… this is about atheism.  You counter the argument… by preaching women’s rights?  I’m all for them, but… doesn’t it seem like you’re making the point by getting in the feminist pulpit?  I ask you again… if an atheist posted atheist stuff in a feminist blog, and an another atheist defended the first atheist by telling you that all they want is respect and equality… don’t you think that would be out of place in the feminist blog?

        Now, if the post was about atheist feminists, well, I’d get it.  And if the poster here postulated whether atheists should be angry with Hustler about what it did to Cupp, that might make sense.  But on an atheist blog, she clearly skipped over any interest in atheism and went straight to the feminist stance.  She said”

        “Do candid conservative male pundits have to put up with this kind of
        abuse? I think not. Women who raise their voices in the public sphere
        should not have to be afraid of being objectified as a punishment. If
        you have an issue with what they say, talk about their arguments, not
        their looks.”

        Yes, candid conservative male pundits have regularly put up with this kind of treatment in Hustler.  And where was Lauren Lane for decades while women of all types — and men — were being treated to the same sort of thing in Hustler?  Because Cupp is an atheist, this was justification or Lane to turn this into a feminist rant?  That doesn’t make much sense to me.

        Now, if she focused solely on Cupp being slammed because she was an atheist, I would have simply commented that Hustler has done this to lots of folks over the years and moved on.  But I and others have argued against this post being here at all and were accused of being misogynistic.  I guess those are fighting words.  I’ve spent my life being accused of some pretty horrible things by intolerant religious people who can’t handle my atheism — and I will not sit by while people who don’t know me deliberately twist my words to accuse me of hating women, which is ridiculous and inane.

        However, I do recognize that some of these people may not be twisting my words; they may be so mentally incapable that that’s all they can see, or all they WANT to see.  I suspect most are the latter: They WANT to see that.  It’s too bad, because those of us being attacked for saying this post shouldn’t have been here in the first place have made some basic, solid, easy-to-understand arguments, and we’re being persecuted for it.  Claims of misogyny?  Whatever.  Christian argumentative tactics, really: Take what was said, claim it means something that fits your view, and throw it out for all to see.  Nice.  (That last word was sarcasm.  It’s not nice at all.)

        • http://www.facebook.com/ellenbeth EllenBeth Wachs

           Wow, you spew a lot but didn’t bother reading what I wrote apparently. It was IN RESPONSE TO YOU!  I used your words, brainiac. {that was sarcasm if you didn’t get it}

          I didn’t jump to ALL men are misogynists.  Projecting ?

          We don’t have to accuse you of hating women. The way you are speaking to us and about us in this thread is enough evidence without any of our accusations.

          • IndyFitz

             You sure seem like a man-hating misandrist.  I’m sorry you feel that way.  I’m willing to help you however I can.

            • http://www.facebook.com/ellenbeth EllenBeth Wachs

               You prove our point

            • amycas

              You called women who get offended by your comments and explain why they are offended by your comments “mentally incapable” of seeing them any other way. Maybe that’s because you never give an actual defense of your comments. They don’t see it any other way because you give them every reason to believe that you are sexist. The moment a woman tells you why she thinks what you say is offensive or sexist you respond with the same accusation of their being a man-hating misandrist with no explanation as to why you think that.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1254090009 Kate Johnson

    From Wikipedia:

    Cupp describes herself as an atheist who “really aspires to be a person of faith some day.”
    For starters, it sounds to me personally, like she is agnostic – not an atheist.  That’s just my personal opinion.
    Secondly, I think many of you are being disrespectful to the community that Hemant has worked hard to facilitate.  We’re supposed to be FRIENDLY atheists!  Calling one another bigots and masochists, isn’t really the way to get that done.  If you don’t appreciate the article – there are more respectful ways to get it done.  Come on!

    As for the actual article itself – I agree that it’s irrelevant in this community.  Other than the fact that she “claims” to be an atheist (like I said, I think she’s full of crap on that one), there’s really no relevant angle.  Hustler is a trashy, campy magazine that is mostly for juvenile boys and insecure men.  They make headlines by putting penises on celebrities of both genders and I don’t see her being under attack.  Sexuality happens these days.  It happens on both sides.  It sells papers, it get’s attention.  It has nothing to do with this community, Hemants message, or our beliefs (or lack thereof). While it’s an interesting piece, I agree that it’s placement here in this community, misses the mark, respectfully.

    • poliltimmy

       “We’re supposed to be FRIENDLY atheists!”

       Hemant is the “friendly atheist”. I do not recall having to swear to nicely respond to bullshit when I joined his blog. And this article fits my description. Even my wife is getting tired of it. She says it’s a “crock of shit”. I wholeheartedly agree.

      Let the immature name calling begin.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1254090009 Kate Johnson

        Ok, let me rephrase.  *I* try not to be an overreacting, name calling, tantrum throwing atheist – like our “believing” counterparts.

        You’re absolutely right that we all don’t HAVE to be “friendly” but, I have found personally that when I don’t overreact and stretch to make things about something they’re not (IE-this article having anything to do with atheism OR women’s rights) – it gives me a little more credibility when something actually does outrage and offend me.

        Conducting ourselves with a little more decorum (especially with regards to one another) wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world, would it?

        • Fsq

          No it wouldnt. I know I can be guilty of pushing it, and your words are well recieved.

        • IndyFitz

          Well said on both posts, Kate.  I do feel that those of who objected did so rationally, if perhaps with verve, but I just don’t think anyone’s opposition justified being called misogynists.  I rarely post in forums for this reason: Nameless people will say anything when they don’t have to be identified.  I’ve dealt with this online for nearly 30 years.

          But, as I said earlier, I’ve spent a lifetime as an atheist being persecuted, threatened, and treated like crap by religious people who twist my beliefs and words.  When I make a justified observation and am met with accusations of hating women — which is absurd — I will not just shut up and go away.  No self-respecting person could or should.

          Nothing is worse than the people who disagree with you resorting to dishonest tactics.  It’s disgusting.  Claiming that someone who thinks this article didn’t belong here is a misogynist is like claiming that someone who thinks a post about oranges doesn’t belong here must hate people from Florida.  It’s ridiculous.

          • Fsq

            I fucking hate that Anit Bryant….she can shove those damn oranges dowher throat…or you could opphotoshop her fellating oranges from Florida.

            • IndyFitz

               Well, who says I haven’t?

              • Fsq

                Misogynist. You anti-citrus woman hater.

                • IndyFitz

                  You’re a bleeding-heart lemon-lime liberal.

                • Fsq

                  I am crisp and clean with no caffeine….and apparently deeply programmed by a whole generations worth of commercials….hahahaha (deep throaty laugh)

        • poliltimmy

           I was “friendly” for over 40 years. You be “friendly” if you want and I will tell them to fuck off. Deal?

  • http://www.facebook.com/ed.zwart Ed Zwart

    There’s a lot of discussion about the validity of this post on this blog b/c of its feminist content.  That’s all just a distraction.

    The real disqualifier is its faux outrage.  Repeat after me: “you have NO right to NOT be offended.”

    • IndyFitz

      Ed, not sure who you’re claiming was faux outraged.  But your first paragraph seems to indicate that those complaining about the post being here in the first place were just complaining to distract.

      If this is your point, my claims that this post is invalid is NOT a distraction.  It’s a valid observation that the post has no place here.  I was never outraged by the post — I was surprised that a clearly radical-feminist topic — as Lane clearly made it out to be with her last two paragraphs of her post! — was not something that belonged.  I certainly responded to those who were outraged and called me a misogynist.  And will continued to respond to them.  Because that’s patently ridiculous and nothing more than a smokescreen.

      • http://www.facebook.com/ed.zwart Ed Zwart

        I didn’t mean intentionally distracting. I meant “distracting from what I really care about” :)

    • amycas

       And they don’t have a right to not be criticized. I don’t see what your point is.

      • http://www.facebook.com/ed.zwart Ed Zwart

        My point is that feminist content is just fine for this blog, but what is not fine (IMO) is outrage from a feminist POV at what Larry Flynt published.

  • ErickaMJohnson

    It’s not sexism when they’re treating everyone, male & female, with equally offensive language and depictions. Anyone is not a regular reader of Hustler or isn’t familiar with their reputation wouldn’t necessarily know that this is par for the course. They publish crude irreverent stuff; that’s what they’re known for.

    And yes, it’s a cheap shot to talk about SC Cupp’s looks but it was also a cheap shot every time John Stewart did the same to Limbaugh, Gingrich, and Boenher.

    The publishers of Hustler have the right to be assholes. And what they’re publishing isn’t being broadcast like Fox news where kids can see it. Only adults have access to it (unless people blog about it.)

    They didn’t do this because she’s female; they did it because of her politics.

  • Rich Lane

    Thus is Hustler’s normally sterling reputation for treating women with respect irreparably damaged. 

    • Fsq

      You see, now that was funny!!!

    • IndyFitz

      Yeah, because nothing is as disrespectful as a woman accepting a pile of money to pose with two men penetrating her for a pictorial.  How dare Hustler ruin its sterling reputation by disrespecting the women like that!  Paying them money for something they aren’t forced to do is reprehensible. :-)

      The smiley means sarcasm.  I’ve learned today that, without them, I’m responsible for people getting angry at being offended.  Or something. :-)

      Look!  Another smiley!  Those things are everywhere! :-)

      • amycas

        I don’t see at all how a woman posing for a pornographic picture/video is disrespectful, unless she was coerced to do it.

        • The Other Weirdo

           And even then, it’s not really disrespectful, it’s downright immoral.

          • amycas

             I think that goes without saying…

  • BC

    S.E. Cupp wrote the book “Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media’s Attack on Christianity”, but also describes herself as an atheist.  Yeash.

    • TheAnalogKid

      Yes, I believe Cupp has written that she wants it to be true. I keep waiting to hear about her big conversion.

      • Coyotenose

         Yeah, sounds an awful lot like she’s setting up for a career of high-paying speaking gigs as a “convert”.

  • Flintc

    “Do candid conservative male pundits have to put up with this kind of abuse? I think not.”  As far as Hustler goes this has got to be one of the most uninformed statements I have ever seen.  It really makes you wonder how thoroughly researched other posts are on here.  As numerous other comments have stated this has been done for years and years by Hustler to males (and females) of all political and ideological stripes.  Unfortunately, one of the drawbacks (and advantages) of the internet is that it gives everyone a voice.  I hope Ms. Lane is more careful in the future.  This must be very embarrassing for her.

    • IndyFitz

       Now THAT might be the best-written post here today.  You are 100 percent on target.  As I said, if she’d been reading Hustler for years, she’s be posting things like this every month — at every man or woman, conservative or liberal, gay or straight, atheist or religious, who Hustler has ridiculed.

  • Thalfon

    Okay, so I agree with everyone else here that this article is a swing and a miss; Hustler using a picture like this is pretty much par for the course, and even if it weren’t, this topic is rather a stretch for this blog.

    That, however, has been thoroughly discussed already. What I’d like to address is the idea that somehow feminism ideas should inherently not even be posted in this blog. It’s giving me a bit of an r/atheism vibe, which isn’t a very good thing IMO.

    Feminism, like LGBT rights, as another example, is at this point somewhat inherently tied with atheism. Not for any sort of philosophical reasons, mind; clearly not believing in deities in general and how one treats the opposite gender are utterly unrelated topics. However, like in the LGBT community, we tend to see a lot of the bigger problems in this area come from religion.

    Second, this isn’t nor has it ever been exclusively an atheist blog, though that’s always been its primary role. It’s had a humanist side for a long time — since I can remember in any case — and things like feminism and LGBT rights are definitely tied into humanism even from a purely philosophical perspective. Science is another topic that comes up, for instance, which is also only tangentially related to atheism.

    The fervour some people seem to show in favour of *only* posting anything clearly related to atheism itself is, in my opinion, misled. We have friends and allies in these other minority communities, which often share a mutual enemy with us. And even when they don’t, there are often ways we can help each other and both be better for it, even if the problem at hand has nothing to do with atheism.

    So while I agree that this particular post was not good material, the suggestion that any feminism content not obviously related to atheism should not be posted to this blog I think is simply erring in the exact opposite direction. I feel that we should also maintain humanism here, and sometimes that means addressing something that doesn’t necessarily help us or even have to do with us directly.

    Don’t forget to be awesome, all.

    • IndyFitz

      But that isn’t the point — at least, not the point I have repeatedly made only to be called a woman hater.

      The blog *is* called “The Friendly Atheist.”  Not the Friendly Humanist, or Friendly Hemant, or whatever.  It’s reasonable for us to assume it’s primary focus is atheism — especially with Hemant’s “Foundation Beyond Belief.”  When Hemant allows us to comment here, it makes it not just his blog but OUR discussion forum.  His posts get us talking, get us thinking, get us communicating.

      As such, when a post having only the slightest atheism connection — Cupp being atheist, and then apparently only vaguely so — shows up, I think those of us who have patronized this blog for some time are justified in questioning it.  As participants in a blog that we have been involved with (some of us for some time), at Hemant’s implied invitation by allowing commenting, of course we feel we must speak out about this.

      Now, when Laura Lane posts it, and uses her post to vilify Hustler for picking on a woman, it clearly goes beyond the reasonably understood point of the blog.  I’d advise you to go back and read her post, particularly the last two paragraphs.  It clearly has nothing at all to do with atheism.  It’s not complaining that Hustler picked on an atheist.  It’s not asking how atheists feel about an atheist being featured (not many, I suspect, over the years, have been).  It’s a not-remotely-subtle “Hustler is mean and disrespectful to women,” which has no atheist bearing.

      People say, “Well, nobody complains when posts about gay marriage are here.”  Well, that’s usually because right-wing Xians are trying to stop them from getting married.  Now, if the post were about Xians fighting against women’s equality, there would be a clear atheist connection.

      None of that applies here.  And accusing anyone who objects of being woman haters is just diabolical, dishonest, and just plain… well, rude.

      • Patterrssonn

        Must be tough losing a favorite blog to a bunch of uppity women. I can understand why your so upset.

        • IndyFitz

           Is that the best you can do?  Really?  With all the extra time you spent adding extra consonants into your name, you might have spent some of that time coming up with ANYTHING better than that.  The mark of a man who knows he’s lost a debate and looks like an idiot, but just doesn’t know when to shut up.  Keep it coming.  My wife is making popcorn now!

          (Side note: I did not command, coerce, trick, force, or otherwise make my wife make the popcorn.  It was her idea.  I had nothing to do with it.  Perhaps her decision to make the popcorn makes her a woman hater.)

          You can have some popcorn if you want, Patterrssonn.  I still love you no matter how you behave in public.

          • Patterrssonn

            There was a debate?

            • IndyFitz

               You know, I keep getting this feeling that you’re a man-hating misandrist.

              • Patterrssonn

                That’s misterandrist to you.

                • Fsq

                  What, you wake up this mornng and magically gre a sense of humor overnight?

                  Good for you, ya sassy bastard.

    • AxeGrrl

      this isn’t nor has it ever been exclusively an atheist blog, though that’s always been its primary role. It’s had a humanist side for a long time — since I can remember in any case — and things like feminism and LGBT rights are definitely tied into humanism even from a purely philosophical perspective. Science is another topic that comes up, for instance, which is also only tangentially related to atheism.
       
      The fervour some people seem to show in favour of *only* posting anything clearly related to atheism itself is, in my opinion, misled. We have friends and allies in these other minority communities, which often share a mutual enemy with us. And even when they don’t, there are often ways we can help each other and both be better for it, even if the problem at hand has nothing to do with atheism.

      Bang on, and articulately expressed……

      Kudos :)

      • IndyFitz

        Excellent, positive points.

        But, as I’ve said: It’s “Friendly Atheist.”  Not Friendly Hemant, or Friendly Agnostic, or Friendly Feminist, or Friendly Kitties and Puppies.  I think it’s obvious what it’s primary purpose is.  Having followed it for a long time, I can say that the VAST majority of topics seem to have a strong atheist bent.  I think it’s reasonable to question a post that has no purpose towards that vein.  If the purpose had been “Hustler slams on an atheist; is this right?” okay, fine, atheist connection.  But the purpose, as Ms. Lane clearly espoused in the last two paragraphs of her post, is clearly not about atheism or even remotely related to it.  That’s the objection.  No objection to the cause of feminism.  None at all.  Despite what others would paint me and others to be.

        Others have argued that it’s Hemant’s blog, and he can run what he wants.  Certainly he can.  But we’re invited to comment here, so of course we comment.  It’s Friendly ATHEIST, so the intention is clear.

        Many have claimed that misogynists are coming out of the woodwork to complain because we all hate women.  Or is it possible that misogynist haters who see misogyny everywhere, especially where it isn’t, are crusading where there is no crusade needed?  I suspect that’s the case.

        • AxeGrrl

          If this ‘swing and a miss’ (when it comes to ‘atheism relevance’) were part of a trend around here, I’d ‘get’ the “this isn’t relevant here” complaints…….

          but being that it isn’t, I don’t, really.

        • amycas

          Yes, it’s primarily a blog about atheism, but not exclusively. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

    • Tim

      ” other minority communities”

      FTW! since when were women in the minority?

      Hemant can post what he likes,, but I would have thought that some feminist content is appropriate.  What I would hope for though is that feminist posts concern genuine issues fo equality, violence and mistreatment, rather than “campus feminism”

  • TheAnalogKid

    If I were Hemant, I think my reply to those who are complaining about the content of my blog would be something like don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

    • IndyFitz

       And you miss the point again, Kid.  This is Hemant’s blog.  But he opens it to discussion.  If he doesn’t want opposing opinions, he can turn that off (presumably — or find a blog host that will allow turning it off).  His invitation for us to post here is implied.  If Hemant actually said “Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out,” I certainly wouldn’t come back, but I suspect Hemant wouldn’t do that because that’s why he allows posting.

      And if YOU believe that those who disagree should leave… that’s very sad.

      • Patterrssonn

        Not as sad as your obsession wih this post.

        • Fsq

          Nothing gets a point across like getting a point across….

          Sugeaplum, you are in this post as much as the rest of us, but you seem to think laying in wait and tryng to land the big one with single sentence posts exempts you from the, what was it, oh yes “obsession with this post.”

          If you take the time to read, troll and post like the rest of us women-haters-in-the-sandbox then the label of obssessed is easily applied to you as well.

          Also, you act like this obsession is a bad thing. Hell, i’m curled up on the sofa, nice cold one on the table, dog next to me, and a freshly charged battery in the iPad….little buddy, I’m on the Varsity Squad for this one.

          • IndyFitz

            Well said, Fsq.  But enough of the “sugaeplum” comments, you misogynist.  And what’s this about a sandbox, anyway?

            Any cheerleaders on that Varsity Squad?  Because that might make you an objectifier of underage women.  You’ll hear about it!

            • Fsq

              This thread has turned into a great big sandbox of shenanigans and school yard stupidity, might as well just call it what it is, sit back, and play in the sand.

              Thing is, the threads were I dont ironically use snarky names like sugarplum, i get called a misogynist….the threads I do use the snarky names ironically, I get called a misogynist…. So I figured, as long as I am going to be accused of something, there is no reason to not….they have already arrived at a predetermined place, and nothing – no facts – will ever change them(gee, who does that sound like?) so might as well make a night of it.

              And thereality is, no one knows anything about what I do civically, or in life. And I stopped giving a poopie what people think of me about three years ago. I do my thing, donate time and moeny to those that I feel represent my values, and basically tell the rest of the world to kiss my tuckus

              • IndyFitz

                 Yeah, the first half of the day I spent explaining that I’m not a misogynist and responding to the angry trolls, but this evening I just figured I might as well enjoy it.  There’s no reasoning with these folks, especially people who post just to inflame, or SWEAR IN ALL CAPS and call people MEAN NAMES and all the kind of stuff that, if we said to them, becomes misogyny.  This is why I have been suggesting to them that they seem like man-hating misandrists.  They don’t seem to like that, though, although I’m being serious, not snarky.  I also offer my love and friendship and help, but nobody takes me seriously and just keeps swearing at me.  So… defend myself?  Get slapped down and accused of misogyny.  Argue?  Get slapped down and accused of misogyny.  Offer love and friendship?  Get slapped down and acc… well, you get the picture.

                So my point: There’s no pleasing some people. Those “some people” will find misogyny in ANYTHING we say.  Might as well just enjoy it.

                • amycas

                  Except I’ve read through this whole thread and saw maybe three or four posts where you actually responded to what anyone said. ASfter that you just started ignorning people and calling them misandrist or using gendered insults.

        • IndyFitz

           …says the man-hating misandrist who keep obsessing over this post.

      • TheAnalogKid

        Yes, it is Hemant’s blog. He can post what he pleases. He can even allow guests to post what they please. No one should leave. It just seems that some people are very upset about this post, and some others. They’re complaining that it is supposed to be an atheist blog. I’m just suggesting that if it bothers them that much, if it causes them that much distress, maybe they shouldn’t read it.

        • AxeGrrl

          This.

          Hemant seems to find much amusement in any “baby eating” graphic that passes his way, but those of us who find them rather ‘meh’ don’t unload a cascade of whineage here every time he posts a pic of a baby dressed up like a carrot ;)

    • amycas

      Me too. Go start your own blog and spend your own time, money and energy to get it successful and with a large readership and then you can post about whatever you want.

  • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

    *shrug* It’s Hustler, what did you expect?

  • AxeGrrl

    Honestly, at this point, I’m waiting for S.E. Cupp to pull off her mask and reveal………

    that she’s actually Andy Kaufman!

    • Fsq

      Well played….

    • IndyFitz

       HAH!  Okay, that had me laughing out loud.  Good one.

      • AxeGrrl

        *curtsying*

        hell, I honestly wouldn’t be surprised by it ~ have you listened to this woman?  she’s like a female Tony Clifton!

        • IndyFitz

           Listen, AxeGrrl… I don’t want to point any fingers, but… that curtsying sort of reinforces female stereotypes.  I really hope you’re not a misogynist.
          :-)   <—-Look!  Smiley!

          • AxeGrrl

            Trust me, if you saw my curtsy, you wouldn’t be saying it reinforced ANY kind of ‘female stereotype’ :)

  • Tim

    I have no problem with feminist posts on an athiest blog.  The two things are interconnected.  But it really does show a warped perspective to worry about a childish badtaste wank-mag joke when there are girls having their genitals hacked at with bits of broken glass by religious dickheads.

    Have you read what Ayaan Hirsi Ali says about Germain Greer? You probably should.  I can’t help seeing your post as a textbook example of how Western Feminism has lost its way and thereby fails men and women alike. 

    • Fsq

      Fantastic point Tim!!!!

      THAT is a real issue that is worthy os space and time. And worthy of fighting to ensure these women do not get subjected to such tortures and horrors. In fact Tim, this is probably the smartest post in this thread.

      No sarcasm at all. Very very good point.

      • Patterrssonn

        Because of course women don’t experience misogynist violence in the west.

        • IndyFitz

           I think you’re a man-hating misandrist.

        • Tim

          yes they do.  Women the world over are victims of violence BUT this is a bad taste joke.  It is not violence.  I say it again.  IT IS A PHOTO.  It is not violent.  It isn’t even a photo of violence.  It isn’t even a photo of a genuine event. 

          That was my original point – why do some Western Feminists get more annoyed about offensive crap than actual violence?  If you think that this kind of undergraduate complaining about a photoshopped photo makes you a feminist, can I suggest that you find out what your brave sisters in the developing world are fighting for.  I do wonder if they would actually regonise you as a feminist.

           

          • Patterrssonn

            Look Tim I never claimed the article was violence, I’m pretty sure no one else dodo either. I just think the argument that women shouldn’t complain about insults because someone somewhere else has it worse is completely disingenuous. And I’m especially sick of the incessant high school level whining that accompany any attempt by women to address gender discrimination among atheists.

    • IndyFitz

      Excellent points.

      But, in all fairness, EVERYTHING is interconnected.  Puppies are atheists since they don’t believe in gods, so puppy-only posts should go just fine.  Rocks are part of the natural world, although religious people think gods created rocks, so rocks-only posts should go.

      So besides being repeatedly labeled a woman hater, now I’m a puppy hater and rock hater.  But my point is this: I also have NO PROBLEM with feminist posts on an atheist blog, but I feel they should have some reasonable atheist point to it.  And if the posts end with the sort of not-even-close-t0-an-atheist-or-religious-point, in favor of a clearly feminist-only point, it just makes no sense.  To me, anyway.

  • Tim

    and surely this parody is better than a simple picture of a pretty woman sucking a cock of the sort you would get iin most porn.  By making a political point LF is actually vueing cupps at more than just a sex object (she is a political opponent too).

    Yes it is crude and offensive but its political nature credits its victim and its male audiance with more intelligence than most porn

    • amycas

      The point of porn is mainly sexual gratification, so showing a picture of a woman sucking cock is acceptable. No complaining here. A woman who is making her voice heard on political issues is not putting herself out there for the sexual gratification of others–she’s doing it so other’s can hear what she has to say. So showing a picture of her sucking cock is inappropriate. I understand others have said they do the same type of stuff to men as well. I also think that is inappropriate. Since they seem to do this all the time, I would think one post high-lighting their inappropriate, sexist and homophobic “political commentary” should be nuff-said about Hustler. We wouldn’t need a post every time Hustler does something terrible, just one about your general disapproval.

  • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

    Ugh. Hemant, would you please do something about Fsq and the other misogynist trolls?

    • IndyFitz

       Yeah, Hemant!  And while you’re at it, do something about these man-hating misandrist trolls like wmdkitty!

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

         Oh, fuck off. You’re one of the trolls I was talking about.

    • Onamission5

      I don’t know if they even fill the role of troll any more. I’m thinking more like drunken gremlins, pissing all over the floor and congratulating each other on how clever it is.

      Either way, ITA.

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

         *sigh* Thanks for the support. I’m exhausted just reading all their bullshit, forget responding to it!

        • Onamission5

          Yeah, I had to take myself out of direct interaction when I realized I wasn’t going to be able to suppress my inner garbled pirate speak any more, and because my appeals to basic humanity were only serving to egg them on.

          Sympathies.

          • http://www.facebook.com/ellenbeth EllenBeth Wachs

            The sheer persistence of the 2 of them speaks to their dedication at proving the “little womenz ” wrong. I like how they had to resort to the ” I know you are but what am I” defense.

            • Fsq

              Manhaters.

              • http://www.facebook.com/ellenbeth EllenBeth Wachs

                 Wow, guess you told us!  Now go buy an inflatable doll and make up for the lack of breastfeeding you obviously didn’t get as a child.

            • Patterrssonn

              The level of outrage at the article was nuts, it was as though the blog had somehow been defiled, women were menstruating in the synagogue, pissing on he prayer mats. I’m honestly mystified as to what the psychology is behind this. What could justify such a level of moral panic. It obviously wasn’t just he article, woman complains about sexual objectification of women, how much more of a non-story can you get?

    • Hibernia86

      Yeah, it is kind of hypocritical of you to try to get other people banned for having different opinions than you when you sometimes troll just as much. You’ve made sexist comments and you are still here. 

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

         Liar.

        • Hibernia86

          You are the liar and the hypocrite. It doesn’t mean I agree with everything that IndiFitz and Fsq says, but to try to ban everyone who doesn’t bow to your personal views makes you McCarthyist and the bigger problem, especially since you have done basically the same thing as them in the past.

          • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

             Ha! You’re just butthurt because I’ve continually called you on your own misogynist (and overly-controlling, and flat-out WRONG) behavior.

            Here’s a hint, cupcake: Calling your bullshit out for what it is is NOT “sexist”, you lying sack of shit.

            • Hibernia86

              And where is the evidence to support your attacks? The fact that I dare to disagree with you from time to time? Or are you just making an assumption about how all men think?

              Here is the point that you are clueless about: if you continuously want to jump to the worst possible view of men without proof, then yes, you are sexist and need to be called out for it. Most men do support gender equality and if you continue to distrust people because of their gender then you will never be able to live in harmony in this world. Stop screaming insults, chill down, and think for a moment. No one deserves to be judged based on their gender and if you can’t apply that standard to everyone, then people are going to have to have a talk with you. 

              • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                 Where’s your evidence that I’m “jumping to the worst possible view of men without proof”?

                I love men.

                I just hate misogynist jackasses (like you!) who think they have a right to use/grope at/control women’s bodies.

                Now shove off, shit-stain.

                • Hibernia86

                  You sound like someone saying “I’m not racist, I have plenty of black friends”

                  I never said that women or anyone else should be groped against their will. I actually think that anyone who does this should be punished. The problem is that you just ASSUMED that that was my belief without proof and started calling me nasty names, something you would never assume if a woman had disagreed with you on something. Don’t make assumptions about people’s beliefs based on their gender. Instead, listen to what they actually say.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Whatever, wank-stain.

                • Hibernia86

                  Great comeback. All of the 12 year olds are really impressed.

                  Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go talk to people who are willing to have real discussions rather than just yell insults at each other. No offense, but intellectual conversation is just something I prefer over middle school bickering.

          • Coyotenose

             You could try actually reading what people write before calling them hypocrites. No one has suggested they be banned for having differing opinions. IT HAS BEEN OUTRIGHT STATED that people think they should be banned because THEY ARE TROLLING AND HAVE EVEN ADMITTED IT.

    • Patterrssonn

      I was surprised at Hennants lack of presence too. Perhaps the blog should be renamed the ‘wimpy atheist’.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Hemant Mehta

        Been out of town for a couple days. Home soon. Thread’s crazy. Who needs to be banned? Will deal w it when I’m home.

        • Patterrssonn

          I don’t know if I’d suggest banning anyone, of course some of the women here might think differently, but I think Fsq’s and IndyFitz’s use of the blog for venting their hate-on for feminism needs to be addressed.

        • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

           Fsq and IndyFitz — they’re deliberately posting misogynist comments.

        • amycas

          Maybe just respond to the comment that have been flagged for being massively inappropriate. I don’t know about banning though.

        • Coyotenose

           It isn’t the differing opinions. It’s that some – Fsq, IndyFitz, one other I can’t recall – are deliberately trolling, and have even admitted to it. They don’t care about the arguments, and aren’t responding to them. They’re just patting themselves and each other on the back for getting a rise out of people.

    • The Other Weirdo

       Which rules, specifically, did “Fsq and the other misogynist trolls” violate with their posts?

      It’s funny. Hilarious, even. A decade ago I spent a fair bit of time on alt.feminism. Pretty much anything went there, no rules, no banning, no nothing, pro-women, anti-women, pro-men, anti-men. Well, except for the usual: actual threats were a no-no, but I at least didn’t see any of that. There were at least a couple hundred posts a day, all either new discussions or continuations of old ones.

      Occasionally something would get cross-posted to soc.feminism, and that’s when the trouble would start. Anything that went against their party line(men were bad, women were good) would be automatically moderated(ie., deleted) and they would then complain to their ISP who would complain to the poster’s ISP who would then phone up the poster and tell to be more careful in the future. There were maybe 3 posts a day , more if there was a flood of stuff cross-posted from the other, far more unruly realm.

      It is gratifying to know that nothing has changed in the past 10 years.  Anything that feminists disagree with must, of course, be banned. Personally, I would rather see a lively discussion full of man-hater and sexist-pig accusations splattered around posts trying to state and restate their points than a hundred comments all decrying “Isn’t it evil and disgusting and sexist how Hustler Photoshopped that poor woman’s picture.”

      • amycas

         I believe they’re referring to the posts in which some were called names like “fish-pants” and other gendered slurs and other posts where women were told they should pose naked. That’s not mere disagreement, that’s over the line.

  • JN

    How the fuck did this generate 400 comments?

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

       Oh, I dunno, maybe it has something to do with the condescending misogynist assholes that keep spewing their anti-woman crap all over the place…. (Fsq, IndyFitz…)

      • dylan

        It would also be due to the few commenters that just couldn’t bring themselves to ignore them.

        But this got me thinking…In regards to whether this topic should even be on an atheism blog.  I seem to remember that some of the other posts with a ton of comments were about topics that weren’t really related to atheism.  I’m thinking about posts on vegetarianism and those few about spanking kids a while back.

        Does anybody know if there is a way to see a list of most commented posts for this blog, just for curiosity sake?

        • Onamission5

          I have to take issue with the expressed idea that people who call out others for their bad behavior are responsible for that behavior. The behavior itself is the problem, not the people who point it out or ask it to stop, and ignoring it is handing it an unrestricted permission slip to continue that behavior any time, any place.

          I am not responsible for the way others behave toward me if they choose to behave badly. I can choose my tone, my approach, when confronting a wrong, but I cannot choose how the other people respond. You might as well have just blamed the kid who wants to end obligatory prayer for the 2AM phone calls  which threaten his safety.

          • http://www.facebook.com/ellenbeth EllenBeth Wachs

             Absolutely and considering that FSQ is simply continuing his bad behavior and sexist rants from this post,

            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/05/23/its-almost-time-to-start-naming-names/#comment-536525843

            he deserves to be called out for what he is.

            • dylan

              I would agree he deserves to be called out.  But in my opinion he was adequately called out 100 comments ago.  Now it just seems like commenters as childish as FSQ refuse to be content unless they get the final word.  After re-reading my last sentence I think it’s clear that the important thing is that I’ve found a way to be superior to both.

              • dylan

                I should have said “a way to FEEL superior.”  Now I just feel inferior to everyone..

                • amycas

                   yay! xkcd reference.

              • Coyotenose

                *chokes on drink*

              • LeftSidePositive

                Nope, I think you fail to understand that IT IS important to get the last word when dealing with people like FSQ, because they try to use their gendered bullying as a way to shut us up. It’s important to show that we won’t be shut up. It’s important to let them know that they won’t pressure us into “taking the high road” which basically means they get to harass people unopposed.  As someone who has quite a bit of experience dealing with harassment and gender-based discrimination, I can be pretty confident that the “ignore it and it will go away” is utter hogwash–that just retrenches the misogyny, the entitlement of the harassers to control discussion, and makes the people ignoring their own maltreatment feel isolated, instead of feeling solidarity in seeing each other stand up for ourselves.

          • dylan

            I would completely agree with you if they were behaving like this in real life.  And if they start calling your home phone every two minutes leaving these same type of messages I’ll totally be on your side. (Even if they haven’t been threatening your safety as in your example above. I quit reading their comments so hopefully they haven’t stooped to that level.)

            I guess maybe where we differ is that I treat the internet as a different world than the real world of face to face interactions.  I sort of expect bad behavior, and if that childish behavior isn’t advocation violence, I have no problem just ignoring it.  Especially, when it seems fairly obvious to me that they are saying what they are just to get a rise out of people…and succeeding quite well.

            • Onamission5

              I understand what you’re saying, and I also would often rather not engage trolls. It makes me uncomfortable and opens me up to a lot of ugly attention. But when I see a pattern of bad behavior go unchallenged or be encouraged, by someone who would absolutely call another person out for being racist or for religious apologetics or for being anti-gay, I have to call them on it.  It bugs me that damn near none of the regular commenters in this forum would allow racism or anti-gay comments to stand without challenge, but when someone acts like a sexist ass, I’m expected to ignore that, and somehow I become the problem if I don’t. I frankly do not understand the double standard.

              • dylan

                Your point is well received about the double standard. I never thought about that.

  • Hibernia86

    I think it is stupid for Hustler to put politics in their magazine, just for business reasons if nothing else. But the author of this post is wrong when she says that only women get criticized for their looks. Michael Moore, Chris Christie, and yes, even assholes like Rush Limbaugh get mocked because of their body weight all the time. It is wrong to criticize people for their looks, but it is also wrong to claim that the photo above was sexist for talking about the physical characteristics of a woman when she would never say the same when a male politician is talked about for their physical characteristics.

    I agree with others below that this post has nothing to do with the blog topic. I don’t want to say that any off topic post should be deleted, but there does have to be a limit. For example, if I posted about environmentalism, that might be a worthy goal, but unless  the post directly had to do with religion somehow, it probably shouldn’t be on an Atheist blog.

  • SonofaPreacherman

    Are there no moderators on this blog?

    • amycas

      Apparently Hemant’s been out of town. He responded above and said he would get to it when he’s back in. If there are any specific comments/posters you think should be moderated, I suggest clicking on the little flag underneath their comment.

      • Coyotenose

         Oh ffs. I could have flagged so many things. The flag is invisible to me unless I’m mousing over its specific location. >.<

        • amycas

           It’s invisible to everybody. I said something about flagging about 400 comments back, though I understand if it got lost in the comment box “skinny death.”

  • Ebwachs

    They ARE behaving like this in real life. This IS real life. It just happens to be taking place via the Internet. This is not the movies or some book you are reading.

  • Travis Dykes

    IDK even as a straight guy here, Id get quite the laugh out of seeing them photoshop a picture of a dick in place of one of Rush Limbaugh’s cigars…  I dont read Hustler, but my understanding is theyer not at all opposed to crudely telling men in the public sphere to Shut the fuck up.  This particular one is definitely rather rapey, so the point of male figures not having to put up with shut up messages laced with rape undertones is definitely valid.  But Id be willing to bet you can find plenty of ways that theyeve told men to shut up that if they were directed at a woman would be deemed as on a similar level of offensiveness as this.

    • http://gloomcookie613.tumblr.com GloomCookie613

       Actually, they’ve done the “dick in mouth” thing to straight men before when they say stupid stuff and should STFU.

  • Wesley Holland

    Yes, this is awful. If you disagree with me, think about the following…

    As a man, I object to any portrayal of oral sex as demeaning. I can understand Hustler objectifying women (though I disagree with it) because that’s the kind of magazine it is. But you’re not doing men any favors by enhancing the notion that oral sex equals humiliation. I think I speak for all the heterosexual guys out there when I say that we do not want women to have to choose between being feminist and giving BJs. To repeat – if you enjoy your BJs, DO NOT use phrases like “suck my ****” and do not Photoshop genitalia into women’s mouths in order to humiliate them.

    It’s my fervent hope that I just created hundreds more feminists.

  • Bahed

    Defund Planned Parenthood ?  Yep… I’m for that.  Abortion’s for minor’s – check.  It’s documented.  Family Planning Services… yeah, sure.  If the Plan for your family is to use abortion as a birth control.

    Reality is what it is.  

  • revrocky210

    Congrats to Larry Flynt who has been accepted into the “Filthy
    Still” Club (Rev. 22:11) but who has also won a “Get Out Free” ticket
    offered 24/7 by Big J that’s good during only one lifetime (length of
    lifetime not guaranteed)! If you know of any other potty mouths who
    would be good Hell-minded members of the Club, please send us their
    names.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X