I've Moved!

Atheist Morality is now West Coast Atheist at Wordpress. Stop on by and feel free to comment over there!

10 October, 2012

Just a Thought

Reap Paden, the Angry Atheist and a co-host on the A-News podcast has come under fire for calling Stephanie Zvan a bitch in the latest episode. I listened to the entire podcast. For regular viewers and for people who know some background on the situation, it was clear that a lot of the language they were using was meant to make fun of the caricature that people like Zvan have created out of those that disagree with her and her friends' radfem views. The sole reason for using the terms were to make a mockery of the easily offended. And it worked. The overreactors are overreacting yet again.

I've listened to the podcast for a few weeks now and these guys are not women haters. Zvan is an inflammatory personality who purposely stirs controversy on her blog. She's mean and nasty to those that disagree with her and pretends to protect women, but holds a double standard when her friends (like Greg Laden) attack others. I wouldn't want to be in the same room with her, she's that despicable. Instead of going into all that, the A-News guys just used the word "bitch."

If you've been reading my blog lately, you know my approach to disagreement has changed. I won't be calling Stephanie Zvan a bitch here, but I will be clear that I do not like her or her Rovian-like tactics. That doesn't mean that I am going to condemn Reap or anyone else for using the language they see fit. Freedom of speech is essential, especially that which offends. This also means that Zvan has a right to hate-blog back (which she always does), but in doing so, she's only proving their point. Just a thought.


  1. I've been making this point for a while now. Freethought Blogs manufactures controversy. They whine and bitch and moan very loudly just so they can get more ad revenue.

    1. I counted the ads on PZ's blog. Eight in the sidebar. Ridiculous.

  2. I honestly don't think that the motives of Zvan and her fellow travellers are quite so mercenary. I'm pretty sure it's primarily ego driven, although it would be interesting to see if they reined in their unpleasant tone if it became evident that it was having a negative effect on their income.

  3. I have the hardest time reading her stuff and the Lousy Canuck. They both come across as the most smug, holier-than-thou preachers I've seen since my church days. Hell, I don't even know any preachers or churchgoers who put up with that much smug, something a lot of "social justice" fetishists could learn. Their hyper-sensitivity to anyone who doesn't think their ideas are perfect is as bad as any 12 year old schoolyard know-it-all.

    I remember one post particularly, where she claimed to want an honest debate on feminism. She had noticed a lot of people saying that they weren't believers in the extremely gendered feminism and hyper-awareness (some might say outright distortion and invention) of "privilege" in many situations, being pushed at FTB and Skepchick. Essentially, that they didn't believe that equality was the goal of some modern feminists, that equality has already been achieved in western nations on many issues, and that the real goal was mostly shaming harmless behavior, policing gender issues and manners to their own standards, and punishing anyone (well, white males anyway) who doesn't grovel and beg forgiveness for being so "privileged" in society.

    She apparently heard a few people mention equality and "equity feminism", as put forth by Christina Hoff Sommers, and decided that THAT, exactly, was what had to be debated. She decided that all her critics must be the same, and must debate the value of Sommer's equity feminism and nothing else. No criticizing the concepts or applicability of concepts like "privilege", no debating how much actual oppression women face (only self-identified "victims" can do that, don't you know), no criticizing of radfem thought that has entered mainstream, or anything else at all, nothing about why some feminist ideas might be wrong... only why she should take Christina Hoff Sommers' "equity feminism" as a worthwhile stance. A position that nobody had claimed as being the sum of their thoughts.

    I'm sure it was a great victory for her. Shadow boxing can be strangely satisfying to some folks. I simply cannot take her or a few others as honest players anymore.

    I will give her this...she is every bit as good as any of the other FTB crusaders at burning down strawmen and defining other people out of existence, things they constantly accuse others of doing.

    1. She really is my least favorite person. From her misrepresentation of feminism to her insane attacks, she takes the cake for shittiest atheist ever. Her "Men are broken x chromosome" rant was enough to put her clearly in the side of pseudo-scientific, vagina-worshiping misandry if you ask me.