Please show me where I said all women are feminazi's.
Firstly, I never used the word "all." You inserted that into my statement. You did, however, call women "feminazis" and that is what I responded to. Until women make the same amount of money that men do, until we have equal representation in government, you should probably stick to "feminists" because the word "feminazis" is degrading to those of us who have been paid less than men for the same job and are upset about it.
"I think the point here is that, at least the way I see it (don't quote me on this - I'm not exactly very involved or knowledgable on the topics outside the big Dongle thing recently) that a huge majority of the Skepchick movement is addressing a problem which doesn't exist and is therefore, ironically, further spreading the idea that this non-problem is a problem. Not only is it advertising to the religious community that Atheists are apparently exactly what they thought we are (Oh, look! Now they're Atheists, and they can't stop all the rape and murder I said that Atheists commit! I knew morals came from God!), but it then further scares people thinking of attending because they're not under the impression that rape and assault against women at conferances are a common occurance."
Your reasoning here seems all over the map. First you say that the problem doesn't exist. And then you admit that there is enough evidence there that the religious community can latch on to it and use it to accuse atheists of lacking in morals. Which of course we all know that they do. But really, which is it? Is it a non-problem that doesn't exist, or is it a wide-spread phenomenon that has the danger of threatening the atheist community and their reputation?
'I find your ideas on the Page 'o Hate a little unreasonable, personally; it reminds me far too much of arguements used to denounce anyone who has an opinion which classes with the religion. "Well, you're wrong, and here's why you're wrong, as documented by the Catholic Church. Disagreement and your own thoughts on how rational these are is not your opinion, it just means that you're wrong, and here's why you're wrong. You're not a Catholic, you're not allowed an opinion on if Catholicism is true or not."'
I don't follow this... I put the page of hate up because it showed what is happening in the atheist community, because it illustrated the entire 'need for feminism and activism' in the atheist community. I don't understand what that has to do with your argument at all.
"Similarly with Youtube videos. Lots of skepchick videos I've seen claim the sheer amounts of Youtube harassment they've had, but none of this offense is ever shown. Most of the videos are heavily censored to stop people adding their opinions or even hurling offense, if that was what they wanted to do."
Soooo, I put up an entire thread of hate directed at THE skepchick.... and yet 'none of this offense is ever shown'... What do you need to see to believe that people are getting rape and murder threats? Do you consider death threats to be offensive? I do. Do you want me to link up the petition that was made to try to get Rebecca thrown off of the Skeptics Guide to the Universe? Because that happened... She commented that she didn't feel comfortable being hit on in an elevator by a drunk at 3 am... That's all she did... And the (mostly) male response was to try to silence her. Fortunately the men of the Skeptics Guide all said, pretty much, 'screw that'... (paraphrasing there)
"No, I have no problem with feminism."
"To put it much more bluntly, social thugs and feminazi's have hijacked the conventions, and it could do real harm to Atheism in America."
"What I AM against is the use of deceptive wording and emotional pleas to divide a movement, create an 'us or them' mentality, censor free speech and generally demonize open discussion."
First off, if you have no problem with feminism, please stop using the word 'feminazis'. It is basically a use of an emotional plea to divide a movement.
Second off, your supposed 'social thugs' are really just women, who are fed up with being treated as second class citizens. In order to make change, one has to sometimes be outspoken and ask for things. Women pretty much want to be treated equally, and they aren't. If you are scared of a division in atheism, perhaps you should go after the men who treat women like crap. Perhaps you should go after the men who make us feel like we aren't welcome, and that we might be in danger if we try to participate.
And if you really don't like the idea of censoring free speech and demonizing open discussion.... See the aforementioned petition to have the one and only female member of the Skeptic's guide removed from the podcast. It's one of the most popular skeptical productions around, and the ONLY person to have that happen was the single female. Because she made one comment on her blog, and not on the show. The censorship that's happening here is mostly a minority of men who happen to be hateful and are trying to silence women.
You are accusing the feminist faction of doing the dividing. Or at least that is what I read. If you aren't then please let me know. But by your language alone you certainly were doing that. And yes, I did read it. I'm accusing you of using words that are offensive to me. If you don't care, that's your prerogative, I certainly can't make you. But your language
is what is dividing the movement. Throwing around words like "feminazi" is a sure way to paint women who try to stick up for themselves as demons.
I would go with "it's a pity the perceived threat to atheism isn't misogynist coward douchebags who meet women's attempts to raise concerns about harassment at conventions with a campaign of threats of violence up to & including rape & murder, rather than mean feminist meanies who are being mean because they hate fun".
But I guess that's just me.