A Black Eye For Feminism and Atheism: Watch This Nasty Mob Attack Catholics With Paint and Gobs of Spit

My mind is still reeling after I just watched the footage of a recent feminist protest outside a cathedral in San Juan, Argentina. In the NSFW video, shot on November 24, the pro-choice demonstrators are seen attacking a cordon of non-violent Catholic volunteers who said they were trying to protect the building from vandalism (apparently, the attendees of the annual women’s rights conference that spawned the demonstration had been on graffiti rampages before).

How can people do this and still look at themselves in the mirror the next morning?

The protesters, many of whom were topless, sprayed paint on the men, wrote on their faces with markers, and spat on them, in addition to other indignities. The men stood with linked arms and prayed during the assault. Inside the church the Archbishop Alfonso Delgado also led 700 people in prayer.

If I were merely reading about this, I admit I’d be inclined to bring some skepticism to these allegations. Did exaggerations or miscommunications color the reporting?

But the video — as far as I can tell — doesn’t lie. Even if some creative editing occurred, it’s a stunning record of nastiness and malignancy. And it seems to go only one way.

Again, the footage is not safe for work.

YouTube Preview Image

Like lots of people, I can appreciate a passionate, vigorous protest. A woman’s right to choose is worth fighting for. But not — never — like this. Spitting on your opponents? Waving your middle finger in their personal space and screeching at them like unleashed banshees? Shoving them, and draping your worn underwear over their necks and faces? Using black marker to draw upside-down crosses on their foreheads? Spray-painting their shirts, faces, and genital areas? Four of those five things qualify as battery, perhaps even assault.

And apart from the criminality of it, such acts are by definition a debasement of your arguments and intellect; a self-inflicted blow against your cause; and a classless, losing PR strategy if I ever saw one.

If any atheists or feminists are disinclined to find all this a big deal (I hope they’re few and far between), I invite them to reflect on how they’d feel if the roles were reversed. What if a mob of shrieking Catholics spray-painted feminists’ genitals and clothing, spat in peaceful atheists’ faces, et cetera?

Collectively, atheists hate it when Christians in the Western hemisphere depict themselves as martyrs whose love of Jesus brings out “hate” in others. In a country where Christians make up the majority of citizens, to hear of how victimized they are is tiresome and off-base. But in this case, the complainers are right for once.

I admire the men in the cordon for keeping their cool in the face of such extreme hostility, and I hope that the video will help in tracking down the culprits — and in letting the victims see their tormentors held accountable in court.

About Terry Firma

Terry Firma, though born and Journalism-school-educated in Europe, has lived in the U.S. for the past 20-odd years. Stateside, his feature articles have been published in the New York Times, Reason, Rolling Stone, Playboy, and Wired. Terry is the founder of Moral Compass, a now dormant site that poked fun at the delusional claim by people of faith that a belief in God equips them with superior moral standards. He joined Friendly Atheist in 2013.

  • http://withinthismind.com/ WithinThisMind

    —If we resort to violence, because one time . . . , or even a thousand
    times . . . ., we will only make it harder to improve laws.—

    If you walked into a public bathroom and saw someone molesting a child, would you shut the door and walk away and call the cops and maybe petition for some laws about not molesting a kid in a public bathroom?

    Or would you grab the molester by the throat and slam him into the wall, hand your cell phone to the kid, and say ‘call 911 and tell them this guy fell down the stairs a couple dozen times?’

    —The people protesting are unintentionally providing support for what they are protesting.

    Their behavior is promoting their oppression.—

    That’s a neat bit of hypocrisy there, isn’t it?

    The behavior of the men involved was promoting the oppression of the women, intentionally providing support for the behavior the women are protesting.

    Why aren’t you angry?

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    WithinThisMind,

    If you walked into a public bathroom and saw someone molesting a child, would you shut the door and walk away and call the cops and maybe petition for some laws about not molesting a kid in a public bathroom?

    These men are molesting children in front of the women?

    You continue to provide logical fallacies and lies.

    —The people protesting are unintentionally providing support for what they are protesting.

    Their behavior is promoting their oppression.—

    That’s a neat bit of hypocrisy there, isn’t it?

    No.

    They are providing video for the oppressors to use to convince people that the women are incapable of controlling themselves. That is the message the oppressors are trying to communicate.

    The minority of the women protesting in the way you advocate are doing what the oppressors want.

    Notice that only a minority of the women living with this oppression are resorting to the tactics you advocate.

    What is wrong with the majority?

    Why aren’t the majority angry.

    Are those who behave in the way that I support are just as guilty as I am?

    What is wrong with them that they do not resort to the violence you advocate?

    Don’t they see the child molestation in the bathroom?

    .

  • http://withinthismind.com/ WithinThisMind

    It’s sad that in spite of all those links, you still can’t figure out how it could be that some women are angry enough to riot.

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    WithinThisMind,

    It’s sad that in spite of all those links, you still can’t figure out how it could be that some women are angry enough to riot.

    I never stated that I cannot understand their anger.

    I never stated that I am not angry.

    Why do you rely on lies for your argument?

    Why don’t you avoid the straw men and the rest of your logical fallacies?

    Why did the majority of the protesting women not resort to violence?

    They do not care as much as you do, right?

    Send them the links and all will be better!

    .

  • Hibernia86

    There are two problems with your comment. First of all, one does not have to experience something to morally judge it. For example, say that someone who failed out of medical school decided to go and murder someone. No one would say “Well I’ve never failed out of medical school so I can’t judge how he is feeling at this time. Maybe it is understandable that he would feel angry enough to kill and he shouldn’t be held responsible for that.” That would be a ridiculous claim to make. Just because you haven’t failed out of medical school yourself does not mean you can’t judge those who misbehave after doing so. You are capable of using your basic understanding of morality to judge that his action wasn’t right.

    Secondly, your claim that as a man you have all the privilege in situations of reproduction or violence simply isn’t true. If there is an accidental (or purposeful) pregnancy, in a pro-choice society she would get to decide whether she wanted children or not while you would be forced to have kids whether you wanted to or not. You have fewer reproductive choices than she does. If you are sexually assaulted by a woman, you are much less likely to be believed or get justice in court. If a woman slaps, hits, or otherwise attacks you, many people will assume that you deserved it, will laugh at you, or will consider you weak for not just handling it yourself. This isn’t to dismiss the many reproductive and domestic violence issues that women face, but the idea that men have all the privilege in these issues is simply false.

  • Hibernia86

    Men are described in negative gender specific ways all the time in protests. They are said to be “beating their chests” even if they weren’t literally. They are described as “thugs”, something women almost never get described as.

  • Hibernia86

    And yet Susan B Anthony is who everyone remembers so maybe she had a greater effect after all. Same goes for Martin Luther King and civil rights.

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    She has had greater PR efforts on her behalf. And don’t get me wrong, she was a great woman in many ways. She deserves to be honored, remembered, and respected.

    But Alice Paul has been thrown under the bus of history because she was too radical, too “unfeminine”, too uncomfortable. I think it’s time we did remember her.

  • Hibernia86

    It is a political reality. If you react violently when there are other options available, you slow down reform. This is the same debate Malcolm X and Martin Luther King had. MLK (like Gandhi) is the one remembered fondly today. There is a reason for that.

  • Hibernia86

    “To me, baring breasts as protest seems less like sexual harassment,
    because the point tends to be that women’s breasts aren’t inherently
    more sexual than men’s.”

    Women’s breasts are considered a sexual part of their body even not used in reproduction. That isn’t true for men because their breasts are so undeveloped as to pretty much not be there at all. If you mooned someone, that would be considered to some degree sexual even though the butt isn’t used directly in reproduction. Having developed breasts is a sexual characteristic just like having balls is.

  • Grace

    Hmm, maybe.

    But men who have more developed breasts aren’t told that their breasts are sexually inappropriate. They might be made to feel embarrassed about it — which is unfortunate — but they won’t be told that it’s obscene or indecent for them to not wear a shirt at the beach. For some people — assuming that you knew that they were cisgender — you might not be able to tell whether they were a man or a woman if you were only looking at a picture of their chest.

  • Hibernia86

    I agree that it isn’t entirely fair, but I think there is a reason why we developed these ideas. In ancient times men wanted women with breasts who could breast feed their children and keep them alive. Similarly women wanted men with muscles who could protect them against threats. That is why breasts are considered sexy for women and muscles are considered sexy for men but neither is when the gender is flipped. Yes the world is very different today and yes culture has an effect, but there is a reason why we think the way we do.

  • Hibernia86

    Except the men were there to protect the building against vandalism so it isn’t as if they went out of their way to follow the women to their protest site. The men were on their “home turf” so to speak.

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    Sure. But they were still there as a counterprotest in a space they knew would be part of the women’s protest. I acknowledge and respect their desire to protect the building, as well as their dignity under assault. They still don’t have to be “protected” from two women performing sexual acts as a protest.

  • Hibernia86

    I think public sex at a protest should be treated the same as public sex elsewhere. What if two women (or a man and a woman) were having sex in a city park in the same manner? The way the law treats that should be the way the law treats the women who performed sexual acts at the protest. (I would guess that the sex acts in the public park would not be legal in most jurisdictions so the same should hold for the protest)

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    If there are laws against public sex, then yes, they should probably be enforced. That doesn’t mean there is any moral or ethical wrong in the act of public cunnilingus, though. It just means it’s illegal.

  • Hibernia86

    I don’t have time to analyze each one of these links, but let me at least try one. In the second to last link, the author claims that a frat party called “pig tails and pedophiles” was supporting rape culture. This ignores the fact that the party was specifically to mock pedophiles. It was supposed to shock you the way a gruesome Halloween costume might shock you. Twisting that around to suggest that they were somehow supporting pedophilia is just dishonest of the author.

  • http://withinthismind.com/ WithinThisMind

    Thank you for chiming in to support rape culture by deliberately choosing to blind yourself to the historical context of frat parties and their past behavior.

  • Hibernia86

    Seriously? You are just going to throw out a bunch of buzz words without any sort of logical discussion? The “historical context of frat parties and their past behavior”? So you are suggesting that since there have been rapes at frat parties therefore all frat parties are bad? Yeah there have been rapes on buses before too, does that make buses suspect of being bad? I’m not a member of a frat, but the vast majority of frat parties do not involve rape and the vast majority of fraternity members think rape is abhorrent. You admit here that you aren’t being honest about the meaning of the party, but rather going on the “historical context of frat parties” as if this party is somehow worse because it was thrown by a frat rather than some other group. It seems that this position is based on your hatred of frats rather than any logical analysis of the party itself. I think it is important for Atheists to realize that skeptical thinking isn’t just for dealing with religion but should be used in all walks of life.

  • http://withinthismind.com/ WithinThisMind

    I’m sorry, if you haven’t been paying attention, I don’t have the time or inclination to educate you.

    Try this for a starting point – http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fraternitities+and+rape+culture

  • http://127.0.0.1 3lemenope

    Well, that was unintentionally hilarious.

    “Fraternitities.”

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

    *snicker*

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    We are so juvenile sometimes! I had the same reaction you did :)

  • http://withinthismind.com/ WithinThisMind

    Gee, I’m sorry I didn’t put any effort into helping someone overcome their willful ignorance. My humble apologies.

  • Hibernia86

    I’m not saying that Frat parties are free of sexual assault issues, but I do think that it is wrong to think that Frat parties are automatically suspect of being abusive when in most cases that isn’t true. But that isn’t even the main issue. The main issue is that you suggested that it is more wrong for Frats to have “pigtails and pedophile” parties than other groups. First there is the fact that the rape cases in frats normally involve college students so the pedophile part has no relation to the issues you raised above. Second and far more importantly is that something is either offensive or it isn’t. Saying that something is offensive based on the person who says it means that you are twisting the meaning of their words based on the person saying it. That is your personal bias. If someone says something, we need to be honest about the meaning of their words and not try to warp what they say based on the group they happen to be a member of.

  • http://withinthismind.com/ WithinThisMind

    So even though the last 50 times the guy at the corner has asked for a dollar for gas so he could just get home, you are still going to give him the dollar because this time he showed you his car keys so you think he might actually spend it on gas?

  • http://127.0.0.1 3lemenope

    There are ways to get skeptical folks to take your position seriously.

    This isn’t one of them.

  • http://withinthismind.com/ WithinThisMind

    Thank you for acknowledging you can’t address the points raised.

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    I agree with a lot (though most certainly not all) of what you’re saying, but 3lemenope is right. You’re not helping your cause with this sort of thing.

  • http://withinthismind.com/ WithinThisMind

    Sorry, I’m not overly inclined to feed trolls or educate the willfully and deliberately ignorant. I posted dozens of links, and someone took one of them, completely ignored the historical context of the event (and clearly didn’t do more than skim the article), and tried to play the ‘hey, this one doesn’t count so all the others can be disregarded too!’ game.

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    Hey, Rogue Medic is pissing me off too. But just throwing links at hir isn’t going to help, because ze knows why women are angry (or at least that’s the impression I get). Ze just doesn’t think that anger should ever be let out in any remotely violent way. I disagree with Rogue Medic, but you are not arguing your point very effectively.

  • http://withinthismind.com/ WithinThisMind

    That’s probably because I’m not bothering. Rogue Medic, like most other so-called pacifists, is pretty much just a lying hypocrite who would indulge in violence in a heartbeat if they were in such a situation, but since they have privilege, they don’t feel they’ll ever been in such a situation and thus act all high and mighty about it.

    Rogue’s never even walked the mile, so can’t figure out why anyone would complain about having had to walk the mile in crappy shoes.

    But I’m supposed to waste my time and put in effort to educate the willfully ignorant and dishonestly hypocritical? And moreover, I’m supposed to be nice and polite and above all not let the tiniest bit of my frustration or anger show or else I’m ‘not helping my cause’? Fuck that shit.

    Nobody listens when I say it nicely. When I’m not nice about it, all I get is tone trolls and ‘well it would be more effective if you were just nicer about it’. Bullshit.

    Folks like Rogue have temper tantrums and scream when someone goes a little to slow on the freeway, but I’m supposed to be nice and well-mannered and kind and gentle and demure and feminine when discussing an issue that nearly killed me? And instead of actually discussing any of the issues, all that happens is a bunch of ‘well gee I’d like to listen to you but you are just so strident/hysterical about it’? And then they wonder how it is we got mad enough to spit and throw things.

    Rogue is a troll. I’m not going to change Rogue’s mind, it was made up before the first post was made and Rogue doesn’t possess enough critical thinking skills to change it even if Rogue was inclined to try.

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    WithinThisMind,

    Rogue Medic, like most other so-called pacifists, is pretty much just a lying hypocrite who would indulge in violence in a heartbeat if they were in such a situation, but since they have privilege, they don’t feel they’ll ever been in such a situation and thus act all high and mighty about it.

    Your mind reading skills are amazing.

    Why not stick to the discussion, rather than write fantasy fiction?

    Rogue’s never even walked the mile, so can’t figure out why anyone would complain about having had to walk the mile in crappy shoes.

    How would you know what I have done?

    Please demonstrate your psychic abilities for us.

    Nobody listens when I say it nicely. When I’m not nice about it, all I get is tone trolls and ‘well it would be more effective if you were just nicer about it’.

    I have not claimed that you are not nice.

    I have stated that you are a liar.

    Folks like Rogue have temper tantrums and scream when someone goes a little to slow on the freeway, but I’m supposed to be nice and well-mannered and kind and gentle and demure and feminine when discussing an issue that nearly killed me?

    How would you know what I have done?

    Please demonstrate your psychic abilities for us.

    And instead of actually discussing any of the issues, all that happens is a bunch of ‘well gee I’d like to listen to you but you are just so strident/hysterical about it’? And then they wonder how it is we got mad enough to spit and throw things.

    We were discussing a protest where a small minority of the women engaged in some minor violence.

    You claimed that opposing that is the same as not responding to a physical attack.

    I have repeatedly stated otherwise, but you continue with your lies.

    Nobody listens when I say it nicely.

    The problem is not your tone, but your reliance on logical fallacies and your dishonesty.

    .

  • http://withinthismind.com/ WithinThisMind

    This time, actually read a link –

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongods/2013/12/17/age-of-kali-a-year-on/

    If you still don’t get it, well, you just proved my previous post right.

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    WithinThisMind,

    You are posting a link by someone who does not support your calls for violence.

    Are you admitting that your calls for violence are wrong?

    Are you continuing to promote your lie that I do not care?

    Or do you have some other point?

    .

  • http://withinthismind.com/ WithinThisMind

    I’m sorry that you are proud of the fact that you can empathize with the men who chose to make a stand for misogyny, but not with the women who were pushed to the breaking point.

    I’m also sorry you apparently cannot be honest and are claiming that I’m calling for violence.

    I’m sorry you don’t care that women have actually been maimed and killed in this war.

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    WithinThisMind,

    I’m sorry that you are proud of the fact that you can empathize with the men who chose to make a stand for misogyny, but not with the women who were pushed to the breaking point.

    You keep repeating this lie.

    Do you think repetition will make your lie true?

    I’m also sorry you apparently cannot be honest and are claiming that I’m calling for violence.

    We started with my comment to Jace Paul, which you quoted to contradict –

    —Show that peaceful revolution is impossible.—

    Why must this point be proven again? Malcom X proved it a generation ago.

    If you believe that violent revolution is not possible, why aren’t you calling for violence?

    Make up your mind about what your point is.

    I’m sorry you don’t care that women have actually been maimed and killed in this war.

    As with your other lies, you keep repeating this lie.

    Do you think repetition will make your lie true?

    .

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    WithinThisMind,

    I posted dozens of links,

    Do any of those links show any of the men around the church harming any of the women protesting?

    If not, then the links are irrelevant.

    Why did the majority of the protesting women not resort to violence?

    What about the links you posted do the protesting women not understand?

    Are most of the protesting women trolls for not using violence?

    .

  • http://withinthismind.com/ WithinThisMind

    It’s sad that in spite of all those links, you still can’t figure out how it could be that some women are angry enough to riot.

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    WithinThisMind,

    It’s sad that in spite of all those links, you still can’t figure out how it could be that some women are angry enough to riot.

    I never stated that I cannot understand their anger.

    I never stated that I am not angry.

    Why do you rely on lies for your argument?

    Why don’t you avoid the straw men and the rest of your logical fallacies?

    I could post links to articles about babies being killed and claim that you do not care. It would not be relevant, but relevance has not been a part of your argument.

    I could dream up stories about you being faced with an opportunity to tell the truth and still obsessively lying. I could repeat it in spite of your denials.

    Why did the majority of the protesting women not resort to violence?

    They do not care as much as you, right?

    Maybe you should send them your links.

    .

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    Feminerd,

    I think WithinThisMind is suggesting two things.

    He doesn’t appear to care about the truth.

    He doesn’t appear to care how much he hurts feminists by giving material to those who wish to spread propaganda about feminists as feminazis.

    .

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    I disagree with both statements. And I wish you wouldn’t automatically gender Within male- ze could be male or female, and given the intensely personal nature of hir arguments as well as hir experience as a clinic escort, is more likely, though not 100%, to be female.

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    Feminerd,

    I am shocked that you disagree with me.

    Do WithinThisMind’s repeated lies suggest a respect for truth?

    Do WithinThisMind’s lying and reliance on logical fallacies convince people that feminists are good people or do they lead people to believe that the any group this dishonest is wrong?

    .

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    What lies? Ze has posted many links about things that should make you angry, as reasons why these women were angry enough to commit violent acts. I’m not sure why you think those are lies. Ze has also accused you of word-twisting, a charge I am in 100% agreement with.

    I’m also not sure what logical fallacies you’re claiming Within is making. Somewhat incoherent arguments, sure. Arguments I think go to far and are not necessarily convincing ones, yes. But logically fallacious? No. And I’m perfectly happy to work with people more radical than myself- I sound more reasonable by comparison, and that advances our joint goal, because if you won’t talk to me, you might have to deal with Within. That is why activism that works always has both a more radical and a more staid wing. They’re both necessary but not sufficient conditions for social change.

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    Feminerd,

    What lies? Ze has posted many links about things that should make you angry, as reasons why these women were angry enough to commit violent acts.

    I have written clearly that the lies are the accusations that I have stated that I oppose self-defense.

    WithinThisMind has repeated that lie many times.

    You are twisting my words.

    Straw men are logical fallacies.

    Within accuses me of opposing all self-defense.

    I deny it.

    Within repeats the accusation.

    Again, I deny it.

    Repeat ad nauseam.

    Read the conversation and you will see this.

    If you do not understand, you are no better than the Young Earth Creationists who blind themselves to their own faults.

    I have stated that I oppose violence against people who are not engaging in violence.

    You have stated the same.

    I have stated that I do have compassion fort the women affected by the discriminatory laws in Argentina and elsewhere.

    This is not relevant to whether violence is justified against people who are not engaging in violence, but this is one logical fallacy that keeps being introduced, along with repeated lies about what I have written.

    I have pointed out that the actions of those engaging in violence allow the critics of feminists to say say that their criticism is justified.

    I have been accused of blaming the victims.

    Stating a fact is not blaming anyone.

    You inability to understand logic is depressing.

    .

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    But you are blaming the victims. When you point to the victims of oppression and say “you should never, ever commit violence” without even acknowledging what has caused them to be driven there, you are victim-blaming. When you say they have hurt their cause, you are victim-blaming. When you focus solely on the few instead of the many (17,000 nonviolent protesters, remember), and say that their actions are the only ones that matter, you are blaming the victims and negating the vast majority of what actually occurred. When you focus solely on the violence, and not what the protest was about, you blame the victims.

    You have compassion for the women of Argentina, you say, but I haven’t seen it here. You seem to simply have no idea the depths of rage that are induced when people are repeatedly denied life-saving medical treatment and basic human dignity.

    You repeat the arguments of the white pastors of Birmingham. I’m not sure that’s who you want to sound like.

  • Hibernia86

    Funny, that is exactly the same justification that men who bomb abortion clinics use. They were protecting babies, according to them.

  • http://withinthismind.com/ WithinThisMind

    Yes, we know they are lying sacks of shit who hate women, thank you for pointing that out for us again.

  • Hibernia86

    But they aren’t lying. They honestly believe that a fertilized egg is a child. Being wrong is not the same thing as lying. It has nothing to do with hating women (the anti-abortion part specifically. You could make an argument that the patriarchal church structure is hating women, though even then they do it because they believe God wants it that way, not because they necessarily would want to set it up that way themselves). Anti-abortion people want to ban abortion because they honestly believe they are saving children’s lives. Normally that would be a very honorable thing to do, but in this case they cause great problems because they incorrectly deduce who is a child. I often compare pro-lifers to PETA (a comparison neither side would like) because both groups take things like flies and fertilized eggs and try to give them the same moral importance as adult humans.

  • http://withinthismind.com/ WithinThisMind

    —But they aren’t lying.—

    Lying to yourself is still lying.

  • http://127.0.0.1 3lemenope

    Being mistaken is not lying.

    Assigning moral categories to errors of fact is, however, extremely obnoxious.

  • http://withinthismind.com/ WithinThisMind

    Yes, I know they are using willful ignorance to lie to themselves. Thank you for pointing that out again.

  • Hibernia86

    No, lying to yourself is when you know the truth but ignore it or otherwise try to convince yourself otherwise. I’m saying that pro-life people aren’t trying to ignore what they know, rather they completely 100% believe that fertilized eggs are people.

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    I’m not sure I agree with that. Oh, they do think so sometimes, but their other actions and policy choices make it perfectly clear that they don’t actually think that fertilized eggs are people. However, because cognitive dissonance is a thing people do, the cross-connections are never made. I think it’s fair to say that pro-life people both do and do not believe that fertilized eggs are people, depending on how you phrase the question and which answer hurts their head less at the moment.

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    Cognitive dissonance is real. Religion depends on it.

    The religious will have different levels of cognitive dissonance on the teachings of their particular brand.

    .

  • http://withinthismind.com/ WithinThisMind

    —-I’m saying that pro-life people aren’t trying to ignore what they know,
    rather they completely 100% believe that fertilized eggs are people.—

    Yes, I know they are using ignorance to lie to themselves. Thank you for pointing that out again.

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    WithinThisMind,

    Lying to yourself is still lying.

    That is funny, coming from you.

    .

  • http://withinthismind.com/ WithinThisMind

    It’s sad that you think you’d think women shouldn’t defend themselves against those that actively try to harm them.

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    WithinThisMind,

    It’s sad that you think you’d think women shouldn’t defend themselves against those that actively try to harm them.

    It is more sad that you cannot provide a logical argument.

    Why do you have to lie?

    Anyone can scroll up and see that you have been lying and continue to lie.

    .

  • purr

    It has to do with hating women, or more precisely, erasing women. In order to elevate the zygote above the woman they have to erase the woman as a person from the get-go. Fertilized eggs are people, women are incubators. They care that the zygote might become the next Einstein, but they don’t give two seconds thought to how having a baby could derail the woman from *her* contributions to society. Because she is *just* an incubator for the fetus.

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    marshmallow,

    Are the men just carriers of the sacred sperm?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

    .

  • Hibernia86

    No, they believe that zygotes and women (and men) are of equal value (or even that women are of more value since they believe men should sacrifice their lives to protect women in wars or fights). That is why most pro-lifers are okay with abortion when the mother’s life is in danger. They don’t want women to be incubators or to lose out on their careers or other parts of life, but they feel that killing the zygote is worse because they are convinced it is the same as killing a child. We need to be honest about the beliefs of others even if we don’t agree with them.

  • purr

    You are forgetting about the portion who expect women to die in childbirth, and who don’t give a fuck if the woman ends up jobless., homeless or disabled as a real result of the pregnancy. The excuse you often hear is that pregnancy is a modest inconvenience, that women who don’t die for their babies are selfish, and that it’s wrong to kill a child for financial reasons. No, they have to erase the woman in order to give the zef “equal rights” – because it is violating her body, and they want to force the woman to give birth even if it destroys her. That isn’t equal rights – that is the subjugation of women in service of another. And you can’t get to that point without believing, on some level, in natural law – which is that women are mere help-meets, a servant class

  • Hibernia86

    Because that is the exact same excuse that abortion bombers use. They were just protecting babies, according to them.

  • Hibernia86

    Except that this very blog often points out bad behavior of Christians and treats it as representative of Evangelical culture as a whole. We can’t criticize every example of bad behavior from the religious right and then claim that any bad behavior from our side just didn’t represent us. We should be able to call out people on our own side as well.

  • Hibernia86

    They were clearly advocating the pro-choice cause. With rather unique methods, but we shouldn’t pretend that we didn’t know that they were pro-choice.

  • Hibernia86

    “Someone else is doing something worse” is not an excuse for bad behavior.

  • Hibernia86

    This is pure victim blaming. If your property is being vandalized and you stand it front of it to stop it, and people in the mob say “you’ve got us mad now!” and attack you, then the mob and ONLY the mob is responsible for their actions. I do think that the police should have been called if they weren’t and anyone who spray painted a building or person arrested immediately.

  • Hibernia86

    “And I’m sorry, but the best I can say to the victims of this mob is that you reap what you sow.”

    What evidence do you have that any of the men had spat on anyone else or spray painted anyone else? How many clinic protesters spit or spray paint others?

  • http://withinthismind.com/ WithinThisMind

    See all those piles and piles of links I posted? Note how many of them had to do with the Catholic church?

    Note what the target was of the mob?

  • Hibernia86

    Stealing this

  • momtarkle

    It’s yours, with my sacred blessing.

  • Hibernia86

    I would hope that if people were spray painting Klansmen at a protest that people would not excuse that.

  • Hibernia86

    Yes and if a bunch of Catholics had spray painted a feminist gathering, the pro-life blogs would have been going on about how it was the feminists fault for killing all those babies. Each side is willing to excuse its member’s misbehavior.

  • Hibernia86

    Again this kind of thinking will just cause pro-lifers to vandalize abortion clinics because it would bring to everyone’s attention what they see as child killing.

  • Hibernia86

    Yeah but isn’t that true of a lot of stories that are on feminist blogs as well?

  • Grace

    The men knew it was likely that the protesters would come to vandalize the cathedral. They chose to try to protect their cathedral from being vandalized. They did not try to stop the women from exercising their right to protest in a lawful manner; they were simply trying to prevent possible vandalism. The men were acting defensively, not offensively. They weren’t trying to get in the women’s faces. I don’t see how that = they are the ones forcing themselves into the women’s space.

    I guess we have different ideas about sex and consent. I don’t just believe it’s wrong (and harassment) to touch someone in a sexual manner without that person’s consent. I also believe it’s wrong (and harassment) to do sexual acts in order for another person to see it without that person’s consent.

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    We do disagree. I think it’s wrong in the sense that it is extremely rude to perform sex acts in public, but it’s not … wrong wrong if that makes sense. Especially not in the context of a protest in which it occurred. I mean, seriously, the men could just literally look away if they didn’t want to see it. It’s like people complaining about sexual exhibitionism at gay pride parades- don’t like it? Then don’t look. It’s really not hurting anyone.

  • Grace

    I guess I see it differently in a gay pride parade because in that setting, the sexual exhibitionists aren’t invading other people’s space. At least not that I know of.

    In this video, one woman was rubbing and squeezing her breasts right in front of a particular man, and if she had moved just a little closer they would have been touching him. She then touched him with her hand, which she had just used to touch her breasts. (She might have actually touched him with her breasts — it’s hard to be sure from the camera angle.) I can’t not see what she did as sexual harassment. I mean, if a man was masturbating right in front of me, I wouldn’t think that was not harassment just because I could close my eyes if I wanted to.

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the consensual cunnilingus. Clearly touching someone against their will is assault, as is trying to make them uncomfortable by clearly sexual gestures, words, or touches. A man masturbating in a corner is very different from a man masturbating while staring at you, leering, and making rude gestures with his other hand. The former is satisfying himself; the latter is trying to hurt you. And therein lies the difference.

  • Grace

    Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion. So, you agree that when the woman touched the man just after touching her breasts, that was assault? And you also agree that it was harassment before she touched the man — when she rubbed her breasts directly in front of him, while so physically close to him? (It seems like you’ve answered both questions yes — I just want to make sure I’m understanding you correctly.)

    I agree with your comment about a man masturbating in the corner vs. a man masturbating to hurt you. As for the cunnilingus which was consensual for the two women who carried it out, it still disturbs me that they did it when seeing it was clearly non-consensual for the men right in front of them. To me, it seemed like the non-consent of the men was part of the reason why they did it — it seemed like they did it specifically to make the men uncomfortable.

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    The answer to both your first questions is indeed yes.

    I just disagree with the reasons for the public cunnilingus. I think that while it was known that it probably would make the men uncomfortable, that wasn’t the purpose. That’s a question of intent, though, and one we simply can’t really answer without asking the people involved.

  • purr
  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    WithinThisMind,

    Thank you for admitting you haven’t bothered to read anything I wrote and can’t counter a single point I raised.

    You continue to make up things to criticize?

    Where did I state that I had not read what you wrote?

    .

  • http://withinthismind.com/ WithinThisMind

    Thank you for continuing to demonstrate that you can’t empathize with women.

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    WithinThisMind,

    Thank you for continuing to demonstrate that you can’t empathize with women.

    Why did the majority of the protesting women not resort to violence?

    These women cannot empathize with women, right?

    .

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    wmdkitty,

    Provide some example of where I am twisting your words.

    .

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    wmdkitty,

    I did not make any excuses for the oppressors.

    I pointed out that it is easier for the oppressors to make excuses for their behavior because of the means of protest.

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    Feminerd,

    Maybe you could use your psychic powers to have this conversation without me.

    Maybe you are not making yourself clear.

    What are you advocating?

    You suggested that Within has a point.

    Within seems to be a liar who expects others to accept his lies through repetition.

    .

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    Within’s point that I agree with is that while I do not advocate violence, I understand and sympathize with people who have been pushed too far.

    You’ve consistently underrated the provocations to violence these women face every single day of their lives, as well as the possible trauma in some of their lives. You have yet to respond to the point that the violence visited on these men is the same violence women sometimes/often face just for existing in public- spitting, groping, and lewd gestures/masturbation in public. You have also been terribly victim-blamey, as well as misreading and twisting other people’s words of sympathy for these women into advocacy of their actions. I figured using your own tactics against you might make you realize how absolutely dishonest and obnoxious that was.

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    Feminerd,

    Within’s point that I agree with is that while I do not advocate violence, I understand and sympathize with people who have been pushed too far.

    Is that a reason to attack people who are peacefully protecting something they value?

    If that justifies attacking peaceful people counter-protesting, where do you stop?

    You continue to claim that I am twisting your words, but you do not provide any example.

    You make claims.

    Support them.

    Show where I have twisted your words.

    You claim that I do not care. Within tried the same lie.

    Please try to stick to what I actually write.

    .

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    Well, whenever I (or anyone else) says that we sympathize with people who’ve been pushed too far, you ask why we advocate violence. That sounds pretty word-twisty to me and everyone else here. That enough evidence for you?

    You don’t seem to understand the distinction between that wasn’t wrong and I understand why they did it. I have only ever said the latter. You accuse me of the former.

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    Feminerd,

    It is good that you can recognize the difference and oppose the violence WithinThisMind advocates.

    Perhaps you will stop twisting my words.

    .

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    To quote someone very involved in this discussion, “[s]how where I have twisted your words.”

    Also, Within doesn’t advocate violence. Ze just feels, even more strongly than I, that it was understandable and sympathizes with the women who were pushed past their limits. While I can only sympathize, ze both empathizes and sympathizes in large part due to hir work as a clinic escort.

    I’m glad you tacitly admitted that you have been twisting people’s words, though. Are you going to stop now?

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    Feminerd,

    To quote someone very involved in this discussion, “[s]how where I have twisted your words.”

    You will not show where you claim that I have twisted your words, but you will quote me to ask for the same.

    I asked – Are you advocating violence?

    You responded with –

    Are you having fun twisting my words? I do not advocate violence, but I do not automatically misunderstand and condemn as horrible those people who are driven to it. You are severely underplaying the provocations to violence these women face.

    Are you advocating silence?

    Asking a question is not twisting words.

    Asking a question is a way of clarifying the meaning of the words.

    You suggested that I automatically misunderstand and condemn as horrible those people who are driven to it.

    Where did I do that?

    I have stated that violence is not the answer.

    WithinThisMind has stated that revolution is not possible without violence. That was where our discussion began. You defended WithinThisMind;’s claim that violence is necessary.

    You wrote –

    The violent ones who, in the end, didn’t do any real physical harm

    I responded with the obvious point that this argument is counterproductive. If you claim that no harm equals no offense, then you are making a case for men who grope women to use the same defense.

    Are you trying to make a case for men who grope women?

    You responded by twisting my words. My point was valid, but you resorted to a logical fallacy.

    When I say that in a protest of 17,000 people 5-6 engaged in mild violence, you read that as justifying groping at all times in all places.

    My response was not that this justified groping at all times and in all places, but by twisting my words, you claimed that is what I wrote.

    I’m glad you tacitly admitted that you have been twisting people’s words, though. Are you going to stop now?

    I have not been twisting your words.

    Your statement is an example of you twisting my words.

    Why do you resort to logical fallacies?

    .

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    Feminerd,

    Neko wrote – The only thing remembered will be the assaults.

    You replied with – Because that’s the only thing we remember about the Civil Rights Movement.

    The celebrations of Martin Luther King, Jr. seem to focus on his non-violence.

    .

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    They do. So history should focus on the 17,000 non-violent protesters, and not the five or six violent ones, right? The violent ones who, in the end, didn’t do any real physical harm (as violence goes, while it is unjustified and wrong, it’s also not very high on the scale. No one was bruised, bloodied, hospitalized, or killed). Just as history focuses on the thousands of non-violent protesters in the Civil Rights Movement, not the ones who were violent, because they were such a small minority.

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    Feminerd,

    The violent ones who, in the end, didn’t do any real physical harm

    Are you trying to make a case for men who grope women?

    Just some harmless fun?

    Am I twisting your words, or are you engaging in cognitive dissonance?

    .

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    Sigh. Thanks for showing again why I’m annoyed at you. When I say that in a protest of 17,000 people 5-6 engaged in mild violence, you read that as justifying groping at all times in all places. Hell, you read that as justifying groping at all.

    Why did you read it like that?

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    Feminerd,

    I have been stating that we should oppose violence.

    You have continued to twist my words to suggest that I am stating something else.

    When I say that in a protest of 17,000 people 5-6 engaged in mild violence, you read that as justifying groping at all times in all places.

    Why can’t you comment without resorting to these logical fallacies?

    In what way did I state at all times or in all places

    If you want to communicate you need to stop changing what I write.

    .

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    Are you trying to make a case for men who grope women?

    Just some harmless fun?

    So what situations do you exclude from all times and all places, from those questions you asked?

    And you still haven’t explained why you thought I was justifying any groping at all, from anyone. Perhaps you could explain your thought process there?

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    Feminerd,

    And you still haven’t explained why you thought I was justifying any groping at all, from anyone.

    You have heard men justifying groping with the excuse that no harm was done?

    .


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X