Ask an Atheist with Sam Mulvey

You can't use the built in player: download the episode.

"Dogmatic Feminism" Discussion Podcast (part 1)

Becky and Sam have an extended discussion about this week’s episode, covering material unused on the show and some of the responses we’ve recieved.

About the Author: Sam Mulvey

Sam Mulvey is a producer and the technical brain behind Ask an Atheist. He is a collector of vinegar varieties, vintage computers, antique radios, and propaganda.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I posted the names of some of the relevant ERV threads in a comment on the previous thread, but now I’ve googled them up just for you. Here are the links:


There may be others since then;

As I pointed out, no new posts remotely related to this subject recently. As for the others, that is indeed the first time I’ve seen a regular running comments section for one post run for well over 6 months.


As a follow up to my last post, here’s the link that Paul provided with his comments under the screen name Guerra. This was just one of many examples of people who have been ad-hominem-ed, strawman-ed, and evaded by the FfTB bloggers and crowd. Some of the times, the bloggers would let their sycophants goad commenters into an argument, then they would attack the commenter based on the result. They don’t care for truth and skepticism. If they did, then you would see comments from them to address their sycophants on issues which us readers would see the sycophants as… Read more »


Having read the comments of the new thread I hope I’m not derailing any childish sniping here, but I wanted to say that this is the first AaA podcast I’ve listened to and you’ve got me hooked. Here you’ve addressed just the issue that’s been bothering me most in the movement and what drove me from things like PZ’s blog months ago – there have arisen too many places where minor disagreements or a different perspective – particularly when it comes to gender – instantly make you the next Hitler.

Anne C. Hanna

Daniel, it’s very hard to believe that you’re asking questions in good faith here when you don’t even seem to have bothered to plug “Schroedinger’s Rapist” into Google. The very first link (not included here in order to avoid moderation) provides an excellent explanation of the problem. It’s well worth a read. Becky, I’d encourage y’all to take a look if you haven’t already. And, just so you know, Daniel’s handling of this subject is exactly the thing that the feminist bloggers are so impatient about, with regard to the 101-level stuff. It’s not that people are ignorant — ignorance… Read more »

Anne C. Hanna

Oh, and the link, seeing as how I’ve been socialized to be nice and helpful even when people are acting all entitled and disingenuous about stuff, Daniel: After you’re done enjoying that, please do explain what’s so horrible and man-demonizing about it, not to mention all those other links you were pointing to. Are those bloggers lying about the problems they raise? Are they lying about the fact that these problems arise from what a large number of men (but I’m sure not you, since you seem like such a nice guy and all) demand from women? Please do… Read more »


@Anne C. Hanna I think it is telling that you took my message, disregarded any point I was making and then attacked assumptions. The condescending snark is an extra bonus and i am sure there will be some in return. I have read that article before and I know Schrodingers Rapist is couched very well in good intentions. The intentions to make interactions safer for women at these meetup events. The intention is good, but it harms both men and women in attempting to accomplish it. [B]We can do better than schrodingers rapist to create safe events[/B]. It’s spreading a… Read more »