I'm sorry if I misjudged hnutzak, but it's just such a common feature of the silencing of minority groups, for the majority to complain about how *tiresome* it is to have to listen to the arguments. There are two ways for these arguments not to happen: (1) men stop being sexist, or (2) women stop speaking up about it. #1 is in fact the goal of women speaking up, but since that isn't yet happening (and won't happen without being challenged), then the only way these "shitstorms" (not a respectful way to characterize a group fighting for rights) are not going to happen is for women to just cringe and remain silent. As I said, a very common strategy, as when white people complain about how *tiresome* it is to have to listen to black people point out racism. And you know what I find tiresome? Listening to sexism. Trying to correct sexism. Being the smartest, most well-read person in the room and still being interrupted, talked over, and evaluated for my body. Your weariness at listening to women try to fight for recognition is not 1/1000 of the weariness we feel having to do that fight every single day of our lives. And unfortunately, I can't just flounce out of sexist society/life because it wearies me. So, to say: "this is tiresome and distracting from the real issues and so I won't attend anymore," reinforces the idea that women's dignity is not one of the "real issues" (which it should be for anyone who calls themselves a humanist) and that other people's comfort is more important than standing up for our rights. Again, sorry if I misjudged, but it's just SO SO familiar as one of the "why you should just shut up" arguments in the sexist arsenal.

I'm also just amazed when people complain about controversy in the atheist/freethinker community. What else would you EXPECT from a bunch of critical THINKERS? Debating, learning and challenging assumptions is what this whole thing is about; that's what most of us are here for! If you want unquestioned agreement and solidarity, go to a Christian revival.

well, hnutzak, if you only feel "wanted" when you don't have to try to understand anyone else's point of view, and when you can only be 90% of the attendees/speakers instead of 100%, then yes, YOU are indeed unwanted. Not your entire demographic, just the ones who are so averse to having their comfort zone of privilege questioned, so dense that they think they have somehow escaped the influence of their society's biases, and so defensive that any suggestion they turn critical examination inward as well as outward is threatening. I think that's the whole point here: your kind is in fact NOT who most of us want to attract. You can get your boobie-fix elsewhere, and no one in the freeTHINKING community will miss you, I'm sure. Ellers, given his later thoughtful response on Jen's blog, IS in fact the kind of man the community needs - one who was willing to try to understand the perspective of another, question his own assumptions, and admit that he had made a mistake and would strive to not do so in the future. That is so rare, hnutzak's type of defensive whining is so much more common.

For those of you saying it is "useful" to focus on women's looks, I have to ask: useful for what/whom? Useful in encouraging more smart women to speak out about their views? no. Useful in getting more women to go to atheist conferences? no. Useful in getting true humanists (who care about the value and dignity of ALL humans, including the half that happen to be female) to join and identify with this movement? no. Useful in getting people to think critically about ALL their society's assumptions, not just the theistic ones? no. Useful in attracting sexists who don't really care what women have to say? yes! Useful in attracting people who are averse to examining their own biases? yes! We really have to ask: is that the kind of movement we want to be? Then why not just set up phone-sex talk-to-a-hot-atheist lines and be done with it? I'm sure that would attract LOTS of guys, if that's the main goal. And I won't be a part of it, I'll be looking for someplace where respect for the dignity of all human beings (including those that ARE the attractive "ornaments") and the value of their ideas is the primary focus.

And Geoff, please don't let the misogynists' focus on Cris's looks discourage you from checking her stuff out. She really is incisive and insightful, and incredibly funny! That's the whole problem, people see "hot blonde" and just ignore all of the actual work she does and the things she says.

Ginger, it's not technically incorrect, but it is one thing to say "this woman is smart and funny and incisive, and btw, attractive" and another thing to just say "she's hot [end of value list - ideas? what ideas?]" Also, while it is true that attractive people are rated as more likeable, more believeable, people want to be their friend more, etc., this effect is not limited to women. Attractive men have an edge over ugly men in just the same way. So where is all the discussion about how attractive the various male atheists are or are not? Why is that not seen as their PRIMARY value the way it appears to be women's? Why do their ideas and arguments get the focus, when women's don't?

....and I just got a response to "get over it."

Hi, I've been reading this blog a lot but it's the first time I've commented. It's interesting that I came over here and read this just after commenting on The Thinking Atheist's facebook page, regarding Coughlin's response to TTA's inteview of Thunderf00t. In the first half-hour of comments, two people had already expressed their dislike for Coughlin by calling him a "girl." I don't know enough about this Coughlin/Thunderf00t fight to comment on that, but had to comment on the misogyny of my very gender being used as an INSULT. It always amazes me how people fighting their own marginalization so easily and blindly marginalize others in their midst. From the Student Democratic Society in the 60s telling women they should contribute by making the coffee, to the women in the Arab Spring movement now being told to "go back home, the men have got this now," it keeps happening. And still so many men refuse to look at their own unquestioned assumptions about women's value and contributions. It makes me extra especially sad and angry when that happens in a population that purports to value free inquiry and learning. It is so hypocritical to call for others (theists etc.) to question their cultural assumptions and personal biases when you are unwilling to do the same with your own baggage.