Don't let this happen. Sign the petition and let as many people as you can know:

Daily show take on the subject:


Rape is already one of the least prosecuted crimes- less than 2% of CONVICTED rapists serve time even though most women (1 out of 3 women reports a rape in her lifetime- most scientists believe 70% of rapes aren't reported so just imagine how many women are really being raped and how often and ugh how many men must be rapists.)


This is not because we cannot house rapists in prison this is because we do not believe rape is a serious crime as a culture. 8 out 10 black men are in prison for personal marijuana use (even though white males are significantly more likely to use marijuana 8-1 when compared to black men they are not imprisoned for the same crime at comparable rates.)


About six month ago a male Californian judge said on HLN we should "legalize rape because it's not a real crime and if we ever want any babies born rape is necessary." I can't believe American is becoming such a misogynist country- things have been getting worse for women over the last 10 years. I truly thought when I was a child I would see legal equality for women in my lifetime now I doubt it will happen in the next 100 years. By legal equality I mean the ERA- full human rights for women- the same ones people of color enjoy. 


To not consider rape at least the second worse crime is just a way of creating a way of terrorizing women so they can be controlled and kept in a second class status. Rape isn't in the 10 commandments so it doesn't count. Rape is the only crime where we blame the victim. No one ever asks why a white man wore that expensive suit when he got mugged- no one suggests he was asking for it. In many ways rape is worse than murder (as a behavior) because you can accidentally knock someone over and they could die hitting their head wrong but you can't accidentally have your penis fall into someone vagina. I guess in a strange way that judge was sort of right. How can we ever have consensual sex if the person straight women are having sex with has more legal and human rights? Isn't that then the same as statutory rape? Funny that only 50% of American women will ever experience an orgasm... it couldn't possibly be because most women are being attacked in the vagina!? No it's that women are less sexual than men- um ya. Sorry to digress but the subjects are sort of a mobious strip.

Views: 350

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

It seems obvious to me that you are more interested in making people submit to you, to win some manufactured argument, or to uphold some misogynist agenda than anything else ("to keep you all honest" - really?). How a % point fluctuation has anything to do with the actual content or intent of the original post is not clear to me.

It also seems obvious to me that you don't even read, or understand what I said or, I can only imagine, what others say here. Perhaps an inability to think abstractly or understand things outside of your own context.

It also seems to me that the atheist nexus should be a place for people to discuss ideas without the tyranny, patrolling or inflammation of the dominant majority or oppressors in this case, theists, creationists, etc. Can you imagine how little this site would thrive if theists were allowed to come here, troll, dispute, fact check, determine 'rationality' or to 'keep us honest'? Oh yeah, that's against the rules.

But you can't see how you are doing the exact same thing here?
Oh and that's 1 on the tally.

I have read what you've said.  It's bullshit.  You're posturing.  This argument has nothing to do with the quibble between 2% and 6%.  That's not the problem.  The problem is that she misrepresented what the percentage applies to, and then she refused to acknowledge the significant error.  If you haven't understood that from reading the whole argument, then you're being willfully blind.


I am a feminist.  I'm just not so radical about it that I throw out reality and ignore any other potential cause for something, aside from sexism.  It weakens your argument when you allow people to lie for your cause, and any good movement needs to clean up its own backyard.


It's just like atheism.  There really are atheists out there who become atheists for bad, emotional reasons.  They're bad atheists, and they help propagate the lies that the theists tell about the rest of us.  The rest of us need to teach them skepticism and the good reasons for being an atheist.


What you're suggesting in your third paragraph is horrifying.  You're suggesting we sit around patting each other on the back and swallow anything said, because it's said by 'one of us'.  Like hell.  If someone says something stupid, I call them on it.  I expect anyone else to do the same, when I say something that's a little off.  It just happened in another thread, when someone corrected me for substituting in Noah when I meant Jonah.
I wasn't even talking about you, but if you guys are tag teaming this...

If you can't see the correlation between a theist trolling the atheist forums and trying to derail and debunk atheists and the recent behavior displayed here, or a man in general (self proclaimed feminist or not) doing the same thing on a feminist forum, I can't help you.

Honestly I'd suggest creating a new group here on this site devoted to feminism that has more strict moderation and is a safer place to share ideas, free of this kind of crap.

That's exactly what Bruce was saying, as well.  Don't even try that crap.  I was explaining his objection, since I'm here right now, and he isn't.


If you want to go and create your own feminist group, there's no one here stopping you.  If you prefer forums free of any kind of dissent, then go play in one like that.  I prefer forums with adults who can work through their differences and discuss, not ones where anyone who doesn't toe the party line gets censored.  You're not helping that process, standing up for people who aren't arguing fairly.

You're still not listening or don't understand, I'll stop trying after this I guess. When did I suggest dissent or not agreeing wasn't useful? I'm talking about reducing the number of anti woman trolls so that women can feel more free to express their ideas without being squelched by their oppressors.

I see you've found something similar, since you've edited your comment.  Thank you.  I did Google it.  :-D

And actually, I do have a very mild foot fetish, although nothing like the freaks you see on fetish sites dedicated to the subject.  I mostly just enjoy giving girls foot rubs, because feet are sensitive and get stressed over the course of a day.  I enjoy doing it because they enjoy receiving them; then there's an appreciation for the structure, but that's no more weird than my appreciation for the structure of hands.


You're speaking against dissent when you try to berate someone for correcting an egregious error that someone else makes.  It's not anti-woman to insist that someone correct major mistakes that invalidate or at least severely weaken their argument.

I had one more thought on this subject, which I feel is worth making, because it perfectly illustrates what this whole, protracted argument is about.


For those of you who are wondering what the first chunk of my previous post was about: at the end of his initial post, Oryx had said, "Btw, it's tow not toe, google it. Unless you have some sort of foot fetish too."  That's shown in the e-mail transcript of his post.


This was quite funny, if he had been correct.  The foot fetish jab was good, even before you take into account the fact that ... actually, yes, i do have a bit of one.


Then he did Google it, himself, and he discovered he was mistaken ... and he corrected his argument.  This is the way you argue.  If Asharu had done the same, the argument wouldn't have reached this point.

Ha!  Yes, I saw his "tow" comment too.

That does perfectly illustrate their thinking, doesn't it?  Feeling no need to actually research or validate their opinions before posting them.

Thanks Joseph.

Eh, I at least give him credit for checking himself, after the fact.  He even caught it within the 15-minute edit-limit.  No worries.
I agree. The present group leader seems to no longer be active.

Joseph, I hope that based upon the discussion you have witnessed here, you will reconsider describing yourself with the term "Feminist".

No doubt you consider yourself a Feminist because you believe that all people should have equal opportunity regardless of gender.  The Feminists would have you believe that equality is their goal, but even a cursory review of feminist history and current feminist agendas will show you that feminism is not now, and never was, about equality.  Feminism has always been a movement that advocated for women's issues.

At one point in time these were legitimate crusades, but they have been largely accomplished in Western Society, and so now the Feminist organizations have turned their efforts towards preserving those area of society where they receive special benefits, and denying equality for men in areas where men are victims of discrimination.

To achieve these goals, they are prepared to lie and violate what Western society considers basic civil rights.  You've seen the lying and the slander on this forum.  You've seen the demonizing of those who do not believe the Feminist Mythology.  You can read the opinions of prominent Feminist speakers such as Jessica Valenti, who recently advocated that all men accused of domestic violence or sexual assault should be considered guilty until they can prove themselves innocent.

Ask yourself: Do you really want to be associated with these groups?

I believe that all people should have equal opportunities regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion (or lack thereof).  If this matches your own personal dogma, then I urge you to abandon the sexist label "Feminist", and begin describing yourself as an "Equalist" instead.

I don't really judge the merits of a position based upon the behavior of one group of people which claims adherence to that position.  The only impact this discussion has had upon my opinions relates to the specific members involved.  Even atheism has adherents who go way, way too far in their opposition to religion.


I don't associate with the extremists like Jessica Valenti.  I associate with the sane ones.  There are plenty of them for every one on the lunatic fringe.


If anything I'm a bit prejudiced in favor of women, in reaction to groups like the Moral Majority and the Southern Baptist Convention, which are trying to push gender roles back to the 1950's or earlier.  You can't just accept that we've reached equilibrium and do nothing.  You have to oppose the activities of the extremists on the other side of the issue, so they don't counter the progress we've made.  You just can't lose all rationality and integrity, like this Jessica Valenti character you mentioned.



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


Latest Activity

Chris commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
27 minutes ago
Joan Denoo commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
1 hour ago
Daniel W commented on Daniel W's group Godless in the garden
1 hour ago
Daniel W commented on Daniel W's group Godless in the garden
1 hour ago
Tom Brock replied to jlaz's discussion Is "God" possible?
4 hours ago
Mel Quay commented on Daniel W's group Godless in the garden
5 hours ago
Tom Brock posted a status
"Technology is the new religion and Artificial Intelligence may be our new god. Leave your epitaph for humanity at"
5 hours ago
Thomas Murray commented on Loren Miller's group Quotations – Momentous, Memorable, Meaningful
5 hours ago

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service