David Silverman was a “Proud Feminist”

In his book, Fighting God, David Silverman writes that he is a “proud feminist.”  Amy Roth, over at SkepChick, publicly thanked Silverman for “standing with us” for implementing strict anti-harassment policies at American Atheist meetings.   Feminist PZ Myers even spent $1200 for a lifetime membership with American Atheists because he was impressed by the way Silverman went after the “anti-feminist” atheists.   And who can forget Silverman’s blood boiling and bile bubbling because of the Mythcon debate?

Yet we now learn that this “proud feminist” had a history of sexually harassing women.  In fact, the stench of hypocrisy and deception becomes even more intense  if you consider more closely the nature of his sexual misconduct, as it appears Silverman, the proud feminist, was sexually aroused by degrading women.

In one case, he meets a college student, waits for her to become quite drunk, takes her to his room, and pressures her to have anal sex with him.  Then, early in the morning, he essentially kicks her out and tells her not to bother applying for an internship because that could be seen as preferential treatment – even though he gave his mistress a high ranking position in his organization.

In the other case, he seems to be acting out a rape fantasy, forcing himself on another woman while calling her a “dirty little whore,” and slapping her while telling her she “doesn’t get to say no” to him.

David Silverman once went on TV to proclaim that all religions are a “scam.”  Yet all this time, the person running the real scam seems to be Silverman himself, who postured as a feminist while preying on young women he had power over.

You really have to wonder why is it that so many atheists are easily suckered into sending their money to American Atheists.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in atheist activism, atheist news, New Atheism, Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to David Silverman was a “Proud Feminist”

  1. Ilíon says:

    David Silverman was a “Proud Feminist”

    Aren’t they always? Feminism is, in large part, a programme to convince women to make themselves vulnerable to sexual predators.

    ===
    BTW, people who proclaim that they are a Proud This-Or-That are almost always leftists.

  2. Mark Plus says:

    I would have fired Silverman for his hate speech against atheist white nationalists in “American Atheist” magazine last year. Scroll down to p. 5:

    https://www.scribd.com/document/361768335/American-Atheist-Magazine-Q3-2017

  3. hikayamasan353 says:

    That’s not what feminism is all about. Historically feminism has been a movement for equality of men and women and against oppression of women by men, but now, since both men and women legally have equal rights, it has already accomplished its goal and therefore it is no longer relevant.

  4. Even for regurgitated gossip, it’s pretty lame compared to the endless stream of homo hating evangelists being caught in toilets buggering underage boys.

  5. Ilíon says:

    Historically feminism has been a movement for equality of men and women and against oppression of women by men …

    Bull.Shit.

  6. Dhay says:

    I took a look at the American Atheist magazine linked by Mark Plus, and found this fascinating tidbit of warped thought on page nine; after rightly condemning landmines, the author continues:

    As it turns out, there is a connection to religion in the making and placing of landmines. The landmine industry flourished on U.S. soil for so many years because a majority of the people involved, and a majority of the American public, didn’t even bother to think about it. It wasn’t important because, according to their beliefs, nobody was really dying. They were only … passing on.

    Besides, even if people were injured or killed way off in those distant places, that was all up to God, wasn’t it? If their lives and deaths were wholly the responsibility of God, no mere assembler of landmines here in America was guilty of any moral crime. Heck, maybe even God was using them as a tool of redemption for those godless heathens.

    The point of all this is that there’s a level of crazy built into our culture, and it appears to spring directly from the fact that we’re trained to be crazy. To think in an irrational manner and believe unbelievable things.

    The first two paragraphs ascribe crazy irrationality to Christians; not that I can imagine any Christian I know thinking the thoughts ascribed, they instead demonstrate the crazy irrationality of the author.

    As regards the third paragraph, I’ve no idea whether Americans in general are “trained to be crazy; to think in an irrational manner and believe unbelievable things”: I do note that “think[ing] in an irrational manner and believ[ing] unbelievable things” seems to apply to the author; who seems remarkably lacking in reflexive self-awareness.

    The point of this response is, just look at the level of ‘Science and Reason’ or ‘Evidence and Reason’, if you prefer, evidenced or not evidenced in the American Atheist magazine.

  7. Isaac says:

    “Even for regurgitated gossip, it’s pretty lame compared to the endless stream of homo hating evangelists being caught in toilets buggering underage boys.”

    TRANSLATED

    “Even though atheist activists are a tiny subculture and yet still somehow are rife with nasty sexual abuse scandals…I’m going to continue to believe that religious people are worse because that makes me feel good. Also I have no idea what confirmation bias is. I’m pretty sure that’s how science and stuff works.”

  8. Ilíon says:

    SUBTEXT
    Also, being a God-denier, I am committed to the metaphysics which adamantly asserts that there is no such thing as objective/transcendent “right or wrong” … but I’m still going to condemn other people, specifically “religions” people, which is to say, Christians, on the basis of my own, entirely subjective, rendition of what is “right or wrong”.

  9. nsr says:

    Yet more evidence that atheist activism is essentially an emotive self-justification for having as much sex as one wishes with whomever one wishes, with zero consequences, and anyone who objects on moral grounds is The Enemy Who Must Be Destroyed.

    I suppose it makes sense if one’s thinking is based on Darwinian principles. Anyone who gets in the way of one’s procreative instinct must be overcome.

  10. Ilíon says:

    Except, of course, that procreation is the one thing they do *not* wish to accomplish with their illicit sexual activity. Moreover, do not they (and their ilk) *mock* as being “primitive” those “religious” people (i.e. Christians) who *do* procreate?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s