What do you think about misogyny in the skeptical and athiest communities?

[Randall]

Which was my caveat, but outside of those specific biological labels and functions we must start thinking of each other as people rather than gender specific entitys ...

As usual ... it seems we're pretty much on the same page and just having a friendly discussion from some different angles ... wouldn't it be great if it was this easy for everyone.

 

[SlightlyAbovePar]

Having exchanged more than a few posts with RL, her style isn't limited to issues of gender. Rather, it's been my experience that she's just rather unabashed about expressing her opinions, and sometimes they'll push the wrong buttons. Maybe it's her way of probing the issue, or maybe it's simple catharsis. We don't know all the mitigating factors, but I would bet that if some feminist rubbed her the wrong way, she'd probably have more than a few things to say about them as well. My personal feeling from watching this exchange is that there is a static charge in both attitudes that led to the unenviable circumstance of evoking the kind of responses between the two of you. Personally, you don't come across to me as one of the bad guys, and it's unfortunate this was how your introduction went. It's probably best to just take a step back rather than evoke more sparks. In the future on some other issue or angle you may actually find yourself surprised that she's entirely

Totally see where your coming from and truly appreciate your view. Thank you for adding your voice.

 

[Burnt State]

After reading this thread all the way through, I stand by my initial claim: once you start talking gender in monocultural spaces, sexism will yield itself. Regardless of how the guys take it, and I know it's a male space on this forum - just look at the language used, this conversation devolved pretty rapidly right up to some classic male erroneous claims.

First of all, words like lewdness, discrimination and sexism are all part of misogyny's spectrum. If we understand any spectrum of hatred we understand that these are continuums and that on one end we have serial murder and on the other end are sexist jokes, lewd language etc. Where you decide to put a word like 'douchenozzles' is a matter of individual choice I suppose. Suggestions as to why some women appear more feminist than others, because of 'bad experiences' they have had is a frequent male ploy. It doesn't hold any water because statistics tell us that 1/2 women experience sexual assault, and as this is the most underreported crime going (is it 3/100 now that report only?), conversations about our daughters, sisters, mothers and grandmothers especially (because 60% of elderly women are sexually assaulted) are important things for men to think about. That the majority of violence committed against both women and men is by other men is also something we need to breathe in deeply men, and think twice before posting on gender. As a man I spend a lot of time working against my social conditioning and encourage other men to do the same and get yourselves off the spectrum altogether. How we post is how we welcome others.

Q. How do you think women reading this thread will see Paracast Forums - as welcoming, inclusive and supportive of women or not? Everyone here should answer that question.

Gender, like race and class, matters, because our lived experiences are based on our gender, race and class AND we are afforded various privileges, anxieties and fears based on our gender, class and race. So those in power should be more generous, compassionate, and yes I'll say it, 'sensitive' when we engage in this discussion and be thoughtful about the implications of the language we use.

Debating an individual case gets us nowhere, though I think strong important points were put forth, still I hold to a general reality which is what is that women are more likely to be on the short end of society's kindnesses, as are the poor, non-whites and anyone without full mobility etc. It's how it shakes down - there is no defense of power that will change this.

So, until hatreds are eliminated, and sexual assault is eliminated we are all participating in being 'bad guys' whenever we laugh at or put forward sexist jokes, demeaning & dismissive language etc. Gender matters a lot, online and offline, and pretending like it's ok to eliminate gender from the conversation will not help us move past gender based violence; it only serves to perpetuate the stats and makes gender based violence harder to talk about and eliminate.

While I know the onslaught of 'reverse discrimination' arguments will soon follow can I just say now, that living in sexist, racist, ableist societies makes things like reverse discrimination impossible and are only figments of imagination existing in the minds of those with power.

 

[SlightlyAbovePar]

Oh for goodness sake: disagreeing with a female poster does not equal sexism. The fact of the matter is, I stated my opinion. None of the questions I hypothesized did I answer. Any conclusions you, or any one else has drawn, are ASSUMPTIONS. Not once have I been asked for clarity. I've been told what I meant, by other posters. Seriously, if women are so easily offended as to view the Paracast forums as "threatening" because I argued with a female poster, where do we go from here? Male posters should never disagree because someones sensibilities might be offended? I would have the same thoughts about a male poster claiming skeptical communities were a bastion of anti-male sentiment. Seriously, get over yourself. I don't care if a poster is female, or male. Doesn't matter to me. That is the definition of gender neutral. YOU are the sexist; seeing everything through the lens of gender politics.

It's wrong to eliminate gender from online discussions? Isn't that equality? Or, do you prefer that women are, by birth, victims? I should take a one-down position because I am male, and another poster may be female? Equating online forum disagreements with sexual assault? Are you serious?! Look, that crap might fly in your drum circles, but it isn't gonna fly with me. "Classic male erroneous claims"? How utterly sexist of you. Reverse discrimination is impossible?! Yes, of course it is. To you.

You're not going to tar me with that brush. I am entitled to my opinion and I'll speak it as them free from fear of your labels.

ETA: I gotta say, you're preemptive defense of your sexism is laughable. You're a hypocrite. Again, gender feminism on display (yes, men can be gender feminists). I'm guessing your next move is to claim you're being "oppressed" or "threatened" by my disagreement?

 

[Burnt State]

Oh for goodness sake: disagreeing with a female poster does not equal sexism. The fact of the matter is, I stated my opinion. None of the questions I hypothesized did I answer. Any conclusions you, or any one else has drawn, are ASSUMPTIONS. Not once have I been asked for clarity. I've been told what I meant, by other posters. Seriously, if women are so easily offended as to view the Paracast forums as "threatening" because I argued with a female poster, where do we go from here? Male posters should never disagree because someones sensibilities might be offended? I would have the same thoughts about a male poster claiming skeptical communities were a bastion of anti-male sentiment. Seriously, get over yourself. I don't care if a poster is female, or male. Doesn't matter to me. That is the definition of gender neutral. YOU are the sexist; seeing everything through the lens of gender politics.

It's wrong to eliminate gender from online discussions? Isn't that equality? Or, do you prefer that women are, by birth, victims? I should take a one-down position because I am male, and another poster may be female? Equating online forum disagreements with sexual assault? Are you serious?! Look, that crap might fly in your drum circles, but it isn't gonna fly with me. "Classic male erroneous claims"? How utterly sexist of you. Reverse discrimination is impossible?! Yes, of course it is. To you.

You're not going to tar me with that brush. I am entitled to my opinion and I'll speak it as them free from fear of your labels.

ETA: I gotta say, you're preemptive defense of your sexism is laughable. You're a hypocrite. Again, gender feminism on display (yes, men can be gender feminists). I'm guessing your next move is to claim you're being "oppressed" or "threatened" by my disagreement?

I'm not sure which brush you feel tarred with, but judging by the level of emotion and insult you invested in your response i'll say to you what I say to anyone who gets emotional in settings where we are working through issues of oppression, and that is for you to trace back your anger - name it specifically and dwell on that; because I can't teach anyone to choose equity or inclusivity as a lifestyle. It's a personal choice.

Some corrections: yes I do see everything through the lens of power b/c we live in a racist, sexist, capitalist and ableist society. For me, that's called looking at reality. I understand that you might experience a different reality - so be it. But in my reality there are reasons for racism, sexism etc. and I respond to them in turn because I want gender based violence to end. In my reality, which does not include drumming circles, only white people can be racist, and reverse discrimination does not exist: those expressions that look like that are just products of internalization, where some people, who are taught to hate themselves, might manifest a hatred towards others b/c of their own lack of power. Some might call this view controversial, but IMHO that's just a compassionate way of seeing power at work in society. I can't take time to explain this piece if you don't already get that way of thinking about pathways towards equity.

Consequently, I don't see anyone as victim, but the distribution of power at work in society does position some with less power. To go back to the original example, be it in an elevator, or walking a dark street at night, men have power, women don't and so consideration needs to be made to create a more equitable moment. This means the person in power has to give some of their power up to create a more equal playing field. If you agree that people in wheelchairs (also not victims) deserve to have parking spaces closer to building entrances then you can scale that way of thinking towards interactions regarding gender as well.
Being colourblind will not end racism, neither will being gender neutral eliminate sexism. As stated previously, people are treated according to their class, gender and skin colour. Ignoring those facts only perpetuates the problem. And again, to explain why this is true requires some time engaged in anti-oppression politics.

I did not say the forum is threatening - that's your language, so was 'douchenozzles' and so I think the questions stands. Is this language welcoming, supportive and inclusive or not? I certainly did not equate forum disagreements with sexual assault, and one has to wonder why you made that connection. I said that misogyny, like all hatreds is part of a continuum - please re-read my post. If you equated your statements as such that's your business, not mine. However, if you deconstruct the word 'douchenozzles' I think there are some interesting points an individual could make about how women's power is often positioned in society.

As for the "gender feminism" comment, I don't know what you mean. I do consider myself a feminist in the true sense of what feminism means: someone who believes that there should be equality amongst the genders. In this way everyone should want to be a feminist, right?

So, no I don't feel threatened or oppressed, after all I'm a man whose power and privilege was given to him at birth and I take time to have these conversations with other people of privilege in the hopes we can move the equity stone a little further up the hill. I'd rather do this in a different setting, but like you, I can't hold my tongue. It would in fact be hypocritical for me to not speak my truth, no matter how uncomfortable it makes people feel.

 

[Muadib]

, only white people can be racist,

I'm sorry but that's just about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life. Maybe what you meant to say is that only whites are capable of institutionalized racism, because it's generally white people who are in positions of power within society. I can agree with that. To say that other races are incapable of racism is completely fraudulent imo. There are brown and black racist groups out there that are just as terrible and effed up as the KKK, perhaps they have a better reason for their feelings but that doesn't resolve them of responsibility and I think it's wrong to give them a pass because of skin color. Anyone who believes themselves to be superior to another on the basis of their skin color is guilty of racism, period. It's not strictly a white phenomenon. I mean look at this belief that some black supremacist groups hold and tell me that it isn't racist:

Yakub Myth." A basic teaching in their belief system is the "Yakub myth." Yakub was one of the council of 24 black scientist-gods. He rebelled against Allah and the council, causing havoc. He created the white race as a race of devils to strike back at the black race. Elijah Muhammad said that black people are not sinners, but that the white man is at fault for their problems.

Anyone who knows me and has followed what I've written on this site knows that I'm probably one of the most liberal people you'll ever meet, so it's odd for me to say this, but, the idea that only white people can be racist is straight up guilty white liberal bullshit. I say this with the full realization that there is a lot that we should feel guilty about when it comes to the way we've treated people not of our own race, but still, nobody who practices and preaches racial hatred deserves a pass, I don't care what their reasons are.

Look at it this way, if you believe that hate is justifiable based on past mistreatment, then you're basically going to end up condoning hating every culture, even your own. If you look at history, every culture on this planet has been guilty, at one point or another, of destroying and enslaving people, both of their own race and those outside of that race. Where does that leave us but spiraling downward into a pool of our own hatred? There isn't a race of people on planet Earth that aren't guilty of this kind of behavior, do we really want to justify hate just because this culture mistreated that culture or this race enslaved that race? It has to stop somewhere. Think about it.

 

[Burnt State]

...There isn't a race of people on planet Earth that aren't guilty of this kind of behavior, do we really want to justify hate just because this culture mistreated that culture or this race enslaved that race? It has to stop somewhere. Think about it.

Ok, maybe some qualification is needed: in North America, only white people can be racist. What i'm identifying here is who is the oppressor, who holds power and how the definer defines the defined. Historically speaking you can visit many parts of the world, as in your example, where those in power set the rules and define superiority: sometimes based on race, often on gender or most often historically through religion.

"When darker Egyptian rulers were in power in ancient Egypt, they called the lighter-skinned group “the pale degraded race of Arvad.” However, when lighter-skinned Egyptians were in power, they labeled the darker people “the evil race of Ish.”

This is pretty common historically and when we move this discussion to North America we have to focus on the two major racial events that continue to define North America as it's still a racist society: slavery (yes, I know white people did not invent this but they did attempt to steal & then transport 60 million Africans) and Aboriginal genocide. The effects of these two pieces are still present with both groups still ranking abnormally high in prison statistics, unemployment, health and poverty issues. Speaking specifically from a Canadian context, our Idle No More movement that went global continues to highlight the gros inequities that descend from the residential school system and the intergenerational trauma that descends, hence the highest suicide rate in Canada is among Innuit youth who grew up watching the effects of genocide on their parents.

Nothing I'm talking about descends from any liberal politic at all. The liberal position is to acknowledge that racism still exists while continuing to maintain the power structures as they are by only hiring whites and yes people. True equity in society occurs when those who run the institution mirror who is served by the institution. My race politics are far, far away from what I know to be liberal.

So is there a difference between a white person using a racial epithet and a non-white? There certainly is based on the power structure. Some like to flag hiring practices that try to create equity in society as "reverse discrimination" but this is also a fallacy. You can't reverse a dominant practice with a phrase. All you can do is promote diversity within institutions, and turn them into more welcoming, inclusive spaces that work against historical dominance. That's a multi-generational project still underway.

My POV: I don't think guilt, white or male for example, serves anyone in any way. I'm a firm believer in action and being progressive. Guilt just holds us in place and does not shift the situation. Anyone who feels guilty regarding issues of oppression should trace those back and find the source of this feeling: sometimes it's recognizing parents as the source of teaching hated or it's just coming to terms with the issue of privilege. I know this is a painful experience for anyone who acknowledges these but it's step one to becoming active in creating equity on an individual basis.

I never said anyone else's hatred gets a pass - you said that. Yes, other races can be hateful, and every one needs to get taken up on it, but in NA it was white people that defined the hatred and they still set the stage for everyone else. What I said was that because of internalization and the teaching of self-hatred what we see from other groups are the effects of white racism. Anything they say or do is minimized immediately by who still holds power; but it does not make it justifiable, just understandable. So I have compassion for why groups of people who have no power express hatred for others. It's what was taught to all.

And as we all know there is only one race of human beings. There is no genetic basis for race. Even the discussion and treatment by race is relatively new to the history of humanity. But I use the term race, black, white, etc. in order to talk about the current problem of racism. What I teach youth is to love their race, not to judge based on race and to love each other.

 

[Actionsquid]

By the way, I am a "he" not a "she".

I wanted to add- I honestly wasn't trying to start a fecal tornado with this topic. After reading the piece by Watson and a few blog postings/comments regarding the atheist and skeptical communities and how women feel received by them, I just felt it was a worthy topic, and one for which the Paracast's diverse and intelligent listener-ship would have some good perspective on... and despite some ruffled feathers, that's definitely the case, so thanks to all of you.

You know, I think Sharon Hill would make an interesting Paracast guest. Not just to speak about this topic- though I'd really like to hear her thoughts on it- but because her recent interview with Binnall of America was so interesting. Did any of you listen to it?

 

[Muadib]

Ok, maybe some qualification is needed: in North America, only white people can be racist. What i'm identifying here is who is the oppressor, who holds power and how the definer defines the defined. Historically speaking you can visit many parts of the world, as in your example, where those in power set the rules and define superiority: sometimes based on race, often on gender or most often historically through religion.

"When darker Egyptian rulers were in power in ancient Egypt, they called the lighter-skinned group “the pale degraded race of Arvad.” However, when lighter-skinned Egyptians were in power, they labeled the darker people “the evil race of Ish.”

This is pretty common historically and when we move this discussion to North America we have to focus on the two major racial events that continue to define North America as it's still a racist society: slavery (yes, I know white people did not invent this but they did attempt to steal & then transport 60 million Africans) and Aboriginal genocide. The effects of these two pieces are still present with both groups still ranking abnormally high in prison statistics, unemployment, health and poverty issues. Speaking specifically from a Canadian context, our Idle No More movement that went global continues to highlight the gros inequities that descend from the residential school system and the intergenerational trauma that descends, hence the highest suicide rate in Canada is among Innuit youth who grew up watching the effects of genocide on their parents.

Nothing I'm talking about descends from any liberal politic at all. The liberal position is to acknowledge that racism still exists while continuing to maintain the power structures as they are by only hiring whites and yes people. True equity in society occurs when those who run the institution mirror who is served by the institution. My race politics are far, far away from what I know to be liberal.

So is there a difference between a white person using a racial epithet and a non-white? There certainly is based on the power structure. Some like to flag hiring practices that try to create equity in society as "reverse discrimination" but this is also a fallacy. You can't reverse a dominant practice with a phrase. All you can do is promote diversity within institutions, and turn them into more welcoming, inclusive spaces that work against historical dominance. That's a multi-generational project still underway.

My POV: I don't think guilt, white or male for example, serves anyone in any way. I'm a firm believer in action and being progressive. Guilt just holds us in place and does not shift the situation. Anyone who feels guilty regarding issues of oppression should trace those back and find the source of this feeling: sometimes it's recognizing parents as the source of teaching hated or it's just coming to terms with the issue of privilege. I know this is a painful experience for anyone who acknowledges these but it's step one to becoming active in creating equity on an individual basis.

I never said anyone else's hatred gets a pass - you said that. Yes, other races can be hateful, and every one needs to get taken up on it, but in NA it was white people that defined the hatred and they still set the stage for everyone else. What I said was that because of internalization and the teaching of self-hatred what we see from other groups are the effects of white racism. Anything they say or do is minimized immediately by who still holds power; but it does not make it justifiable, just understandable. So I have compassion for why groups of people who have no power express hatred for others. It's what was taught to all.

And as we all know there is only one race of human beings. There is no genetic basis for race. Even the discussion and treatment by race is relatively new to the history of humanity. But I use the term race, black, white, etc. in order to talk about the current problem of racism. What I teach youth is to love their race, not to judge based on race and to love each other.

This right here is why I have to disagree with you, because if you take that view then you have to acknowledge that in our current society there are not only blacks who have been completely disenfranchised and stripped of their power by the system but whites as well, just ask those commonly referred to as white trash if they feel that society has empowered them based on their skin color. Does that make it understandable when these people join the KKK or some other hideous organization that hates not only those of different skin color but most of their own as well? The reality is that any group of people who feel that they have been slighted by society uses that as a basis for hating what is perceived to be their oppressors, both within their own race and without. Just because something is taught to you doesn't mean you have to internalize it and let it grow to define you, I was taught racism by some older members of my own family and instead of following those teachings, I rejected them and continue to reject them, others can do the same. I can definitely get behind your message of love who you are and love each other, I think that's exactly what needs to be taught, but I think we can do that without saying that any type of racial hatred is understandable, simply because that's how you were raised. Whites may have set the stage in this country, but they were only following the blue print that has been human kinds modus operandi from time immemorial, every race is guilty of it. When you look at say, the Rwandan genocide, do you think that it's understandable that the Hutus hated and killed the Tutsis, because of years of oppression and collaboration with the colonists? Or do you see what I see, a genocide that wasn't understandable or acceptable on any level, no matter what any groups past slights may have been? My point is, for some understandable is but a small step away from justifiable, which is a small step away from acceptable. We need to teach that it's all wrong, no matter who is preaching it or why they're preaching it, otherwise where do you draw the line and how do you continue to draw that line generation after generation when people are going to keep slighting each other, whether it's ultimately based on skin color or not?

With that being said I withdraw from this conversation, I will listen to what you have to say in return but I will not respond, not because I don't think it needs to be discussed but because I have hard time seeing that this is the place to do it. It never ceases to amaze me that the topics that gain the most traction here are seldom discussions on the paranormal, if I wanted to talk about racism or misogyny, I wouldn't pick this site to do it on, in fact I probably wouldn't pick the internet at all, this is a problem that needs to be sorted out face to face, discussions like this on the internet always seem to lead to hurt feelings, misunderstandings and the furthering of resentment. That's just my two cents and with that, I'm out.

 

[Burnt State]

This right here is why I have to disagree with you, because if you take that view then you have to acknowledge that in our current society there are not only blacks who have been completely disenfranchised and stripped of their power by the system but whites as well, just ask those commonly referred to as white trash if they feel that society has empowered them based on their skin color. Does that make it understandable when these people join the KKK or some other hideous organization that hates not only those of different skin color but most of their own as well? The reality is that any group of people who feel that they have been slighted by society uses that as a basis for hating what is perceived to be their oppressors, both within their own race and without. Just because something is taught to you doesn't mean you have to internalize it and let it grow to define you, I was taught racism by some older members of my own family and instead of following those teachings, I rejected them and continue to reject them, others can do the same. I can definitely get behind your message of love who you are and love each other, I think that's exactly what needs to be taught, but I think we can do that without saying that any type of racial hatred is understandable, simply because that's how you were raised. Whites may have set the stage in this country, but they were only following the blue print that has been human kinds modus operandi from time immemorial, every race is guilty of it. When you look at say, the Rwandan genocide, do you think that it's understandable that the Hutus hated and killed the Tutsis, because of years of oppression and collaboration with the colonists? Or do you see what I see, a genocide that wasn't understandable or acceptable on any level, no matter what any groups past slights may have been? My point is, for some understandable is but a small step away from justifiable, which is a small step away from acceptable. We need to teach that it's all wrong, no matter who is preaching it or why they're preaching it, otherwise where do you draw the line and how do you continue to draw that line generation after generation when people are going to keep slighting each other, whether it's ultimately based on skin color or not?

With that being said I withdraw from this conversation, I will listen to what you have to say in return but I will not respond, not because I don't think it needs to be discussed but because I have hard time seeing that this is the place to do it. It never ceases to amaze me that the topics that gain the most traction here are seldom discussions on the paranormal, if I wanted to talk about racism or misogyny, I wouldn't pick this site to do it on, in fact I probably wouldn't pick the internet at all, this is a problem that needs to be sorted out face to face, discussions like this on the internet always seem to lead to hurt feelings, misunderstandings and the furthering of resentment. That's just my two cents and with that, I'm out.

I think there's a lot more similarity between our positions in this last post of yours, and I agree this is not the place to sort this out but if the Paracast community is going to become opening,welcoming and inclusive it won't happen by thinking about it, but by getting down to it.

Genocide, of course is appalling and that's why I'm moved by those large examples of human hatred and violence. When we do get down to it the majority of genocides in Africa and Europe are a direct result of colonsation, imperialism, war and the legacy of internalization and intergenerational trauma. If the specific historical reasons are not addressed, and we abandon history and say only on one hand that 'this is a terrible thing' or on the other, 'it happened a long time ago - get over it,' then we are doomed to repeat, no?

Specific address and analysis yields what a Truth and Reconciliation Commission wants to address and heal which is why we must face history head on.

And those disenfranchised whites only serve to prove the oppression of class at work. A lot of poor whites may turn to racialized ideologies sheerly out of the usual propaganda and scapegoating that those in power have always used to steer society in the direction they want to go in. That, as you said is the way we've been doing it for a long time. But, do not underestimate the power of socialization to breed nazi empires or for the KKK to dress their kids up in regalia, or for good Christian folk to dress their kids up in t- shirts that says, "god hates homosexuals." Not everyone has the sensibility, like yourself, to question what they were taught. Most dissatisfied people were trained well to blame their misfortunes on others and perpetuate the hatreds of the past. These cases need compassion to sort out, and of course we say it's wrong and appalling. But judgment only creates opposition and more conflict; I'm interested in solution oriented frameworks.

If I have to say repeatedly to men - hey, your sexism bothers me, or stop treating your girlfriend, mom, sister like that, I'm setting myself up for a lot of conflict. I think change is something individuals must find their own reasons for, to want to be less hateful. But, how will we know we are being hateful? Who can explain why my parents taught me to be racist? How can I make the communities I participate in be more welcoming to others? Well, I guess that's an individual choice as well. This thread and all its contents is a solid example of how awareness gets raised to produce change in society.

Regardless, Muadib, I appreciate your candour and your dialogue. I've seen your previous posts and know that you are a firm believer in justice. I understand and respect the choice to withdraw, but i do feel we were only steps away from bridging a gap. A better day to you.

 

[starise]

I have been on the sidelines looking at this and have frankly been a little baffled by any ability to differenciate between Athiest , Agnostic or Christian when it comes to the mistreatment of women. It seems to happen all over . Why would one be surprised at it happening in a circle of Athiests over anywhere else? It's one of those things that has more to do with character than belief system. We can legislate against it and enforce the rule breakers but it seems to be a percentage of the population no matter what you do. Do unto others as you would have them do to you fits all sizes and sexes.

Some systems seem to devalue people more than others. Still this behavior doesn't need to be taught. It is inherent in some people.I think it can be encouraged or discouraged but it seems to be inherent or more easily brought out in some people over others.

Here is my view of the Atheist community as a stranger looking in.....before I comment you must realize that I am probably biased based on my own views which were formed from actual real life experiences.

As a general rule they seem to be the most unhappy people I have ever met barr none. Quick to argue over just about anything at anytime,mean spirited. Haughty and know-it- all in approach.Not sure why, but the very most unhappy and argumentive ones seem to be from the UK( Ok you can cock your guns now I'm running). Just my observations.

There are a few....I like Mike. He seems to be a really nice guy. I know a few others. So this isn't across the board. Maybe someone else would care to comment. Have your observations been anything similar?

As far as this subject discussed here. I think it is a prime example of what happens when you throw a bunch of Atheists in a bag together. All women deserve fair treatment I think we all agree on that. No matter where they are.