Skepticism’s Dirty Little Secret Isn’t Secret Anymore

It started with Elevatorgate.  Rebecca Watson related an experience she had at a conference at which she’d just spoken about how uncomfortable it makes women to be constantly hit on at conferences.  Afterwards she was going up to her hotel room in the elevator and there was a man there with her who was at the conference.  He asked her if she’d like to go back to his room.  That was exactly the type of unwelcome advance that she was speaking out about.  In a video blog about the incident she simply asked men to please not do that.  

She didn’t  call the guy a scumbag, she didn’t rail against men in general, or even those types in particular.  She didn’t call for all women to rally around the feminists flag.  She merely asked men to be respectful of women and not hit on them.

For her troubles she was called a bitch and a cunt.  She was told that she deserved to be raped.  She was threatened with rape and violence.  Even the venerable Richard Dawkins weighed in saying that women like her needed to stop whining and think about all the women in the world who are forced into prostitution, abused by men, forcible raped, etc.  

All of this highlighted the ugly underbelly of the skeptic, humanist, and atheist communities: men just don’t get it.   Yes, there women around the world in much worse situations that Rebecca and other women like her in our society.  That’s not the point.  The point is that women feel unsafe in places where they should feel safe.  The point is that women are being treated like objects.  This treatment may not raise to the level rape, forced prostitution, or genital mutilation, but it is still unacceptable because it creates fear in thousands of women.  No one she feel unsafe, especially in a community that prides itself on its inclusiveness.

Not only do some men in our community not get it, some are downright misogynistic.  They are quick to call women who speak out about sexism in the community feminazis, whores, and man-haters.  

Then there are the, what I will call, accommodationist.  They try to show their understanding and support of women while at the same time making excuses for mens’ bad behavior.  They say that these men are a product of their society, that they didn’t mean to offend, or some other lame assed excuse.  

The fact is that there is no excuse for sexist and myogynistic behavior.  And there certainly is no excuse for character assignations and threats of violence.  

Women in the community have had enough of this disgusting behavior from men.   They have said resoundingly that they do not feel safe at conferences.  The vicious attacks from the misogynists have frightened them.

The effects of this may be seen at this year’s registration for TAM.  Up until last year, registration for women was close to about 40%.  So far this year it is 18%.  Once can’t help but wonder if the events of this past year have had an influence on the huge drop in female registrations for TAM.

JD Grothe, president of the JREF and TAM’s organizer certainly thinks so.  He recently stated, 

Last year we had 40% women attendees, something I’m really happy about. But this year only about 18% of TAM registrants so far are women, a significant and alarming decrease, and judging from dozens of emails we have received from women on our lists, this may be due to the messaging that some women receive from various quarters that going to TAM or other similar conferences means they will be accosted or harassed. (This is misinformation. Again, there’ve been on reports of such harassment the last two TAMs while I’ve been at the JREF, nor any reports filed with authorities at any other TAMs of which I’m aware.) We have gotten emails over the last few months from women vowing never to attend TAM because they heard that JREF is purported to condone child-sex-trafficking, and emails in response to various blog posts about JREF or me that seem to suggest I or others at the JREF promote the objectification of women, or that we condone violence or threats of violence against women, or that they believe that women would be unsafe because we feature this or that man on the program. I think this misinformation results from irresponsible messaging coming from a small number of prominent and well-meaning women skeptics who, in trying to help correct real problems of sexism in skepticism, actually and rather clumsily themselves help create a climate where women — who otherwise wouldn’t — end up feeling unwelcome and unsafe, and I find that unfortunate.

He singled out Rebecca as one of those who were being, as he claimed, irresponsible.

Rebecca: Off the top of my head, your quote in USA Today might suggest that the freethought or skeptics movements are unsafe for women. This is from the article:

“I thought it was a safe space,” Watson said of the freethought community. “The biggest lesson I have learned over the years is that it is not a safe space. . . ”

Rebecca recently announce that she will not be attending TAM this year.  I don’t blame her.  This is incredibly sad, not because a well know skeptic won’t be attending, but because that those 40% of woman attending last year is in large part due to Rebecca and others at Skepchick.  They have been raising money for years to send women to TAM and have succeeded in helping the number of women attending TAM to double over the last few years.   This surge in women attendees have spilled over into other conferences such as Skepticon, and has fueled a flowering of hundreds of skeptical female voices in the blogosphere.  

I was pondering attending TAM, but decided against it several weeks ago for financially reasons.  Now I’m defiantly glad that we didn’t register.  I would have been compelled to not attend TAM, despite losing  a substantial amount of money for the registration fee.  But more importantly, I could not attend TAM because I can not condone, or support with my money and presence, DJ’s stance here.  Blaming women who speak out about their feelings and fears is no different than blaming a rape victim for being raped.  

Of course this doesn’t rise to the level of rape, but the results are in the same.  Women are being victimized by being blamed for speaking out and taking action against an injustice.  They are being made to feel violated simply by saying they feel unsafe.  

I won’t consider attending TAM until I see that the organizers are willing to stop blaming women and take real, meaningful actions to stop sexual harassment at their conference.  I am also withholding my financial support for the JREF and will no longer write for the JREF blog while these conditions remain.

I am hoping that men in the community will respond to these events by voicing their support for Rebecca and all women in our community who are outraged by this latest turn of events.  I would call on PZ Myers, Phil Plait and other prominent male skeptics, who I know wholeheartedly support women’s rights,  to avoid TAM.  We need to send a message to DJ and other organizers that this behavior will not stand.  Maybe if we start throwing our support and our money behind other events, such at  CFI’s Women in Secularism conference, this will send a message to organizers of conferences to take real, meaningful actions to alleviate this problem.  Hopefully this will allow us to create events and venues where all participants can feel welcomed and safe. 

 

 

 

defiantly

What’s in a Name?

What’s in a name?  you might ask.  Well, in India, quite a bit, if you are a girl named “Nakusa” or “Nakushi,” which mean “unwanted” in Hindi.  In a heartwarming CBSNEWS World article, 285 girls changed their names to reflect a new beginning in their lives.

It is hard to imagine, in our society, that parents could choose such a cruel name for their child.  This  reflects, I think, the sad social insistence in many countries on having male children.

It is known that in many cultures in the past, baby girls were buried in the sand, thrown into rivers, lakes, and seas, or left out in the wilderness to die of exposure and starvation, or be eaten by wild animals.  Where this horrible concept that a female child is worthless came from is hard to understand.  Ok, I get the idea that many cultures desired male children for the purposes of inheritance, protection, wage earning, and so on.  Also, many of those same cultures required that the parents of a daughter pay a dowery when she married, which can be seen as a financial burden.  Still, why was no thought given to the fact that females are needed for reproduction, or that a marriage of a daughter to a man from a good family could be a benefit?  Then there is the most important reason of all to value daughters:  that hey are humans begins just as worthy of love and caring as any male.

These misogynistic ideas have their roots in a major change in human social development.

In their book, Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality, Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá trace the origins of misogyny to the advent of agriculture, which “…changed everything about human society, from sexuality to politics to economics to health to diet to exercise patterns to work-versus-rest patterns. It introduced the notion of property into sexuality.” (Ryan and Jethá, 2010)

What we see here is the result of the male desire to secure a claim to property for himself and his offspring.  In order for this to work, the woman becomes property as well.  These attitudes have prevailed for close to 10,000 years even though there is really no longer any reason to treat woman as property.

We have made great strides toward sexual equality in the past 100 years or so, at least in the West.  I hope that the cross pollination of cultures we have seen in the past couple of decades will have a positive influence on less enlightens cultures around the world.  Until then, more girls will be shamefully labeled “unwanted”, both in practice as well as in name.

 

References:

Ryan, Christopher and Jethá, Cacilda, 2010, Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality, Harpers Collins

 

 

Coexistence?

A dear friend of mine posted some disturbing videos from Indonesia of people being stoned to death for one religious offense or another on her Facebook profile to highlight the terrible violence that religion continues to inspire. She changed her profile photo to
wpid-174270_830719950_2402185_n-2011-02-13-18-21.jpg

I found what I consider to be a much more accurate version of the Coexist sign above,

wpid-sexist_by_dailyatheist-small-2011-02-13-18-21.png
*by http://dailyatheist.deviantart.com/. Used with permission.

I’m not a graphic artist, but I’m sure if I had the talent I could come up with other signs that contained more “truthiness” that the Coexist one.

Of course, the Coexist message represents something to strive for and as such it serves its purpose well. If religious coexistence was a fact, we wouldn’t need the logo in the first place.

While I fully support efforts for peoples of all faith to coexist, my feelings, as I said in my response to one of the videos, is that to coexist we must see each other as fellow humans, not as believers and unbelievers and until we can throw off all vestiges of religions, that can never happen. As long as people allow religion to guide how they live their lives, the violence and hatred will continue. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, but we need to be realistic about just how insidious the influence of religion really is and how very difficult it will be to change that.

Comments on Atheism and Gender Equality

Here is an illuminating comment on my earlier post from a reader, Sas, and my reply:

  1. Thanks for this . I have been appalled by some men’s attitudes – I left Christianity hoping for an equal world and was horrified to see the same old crap in the atheist camp. ” girls are naturally less intelligent that’s why they go to church ” No you twat, church has free childcare and you don’t get touched up.Treat women right and they’ll join you.Also try to understand that liking men and sex doesn’t mean they will sleep with any man – ESP not the older ones who think we are gagging for a father figure…wpid-94fe68a35b9b4a2c0ba2445621a62470-2011-02-8-16-27.jpg Comment by Sas | February 8, 2011 | Edit | Reply
  2. Ps lots of men don’t like sex and will make you feel bad for asking for it. Strangely they lie about that to their male friends.wpid-6f2daef3a2c555a4bdb80036526e0f36-2011-02-8-16-27.jpg Comment by Sas | February 8, 2011 | Edit | Reply
  3. Sas, I agree with you completely. Men need to understand that just because a woman is sexually liberated doesn’t mean she will sleep with everyone, especially them. Yes, biology is powerful. Yes, males evolved to try to have sex with as many females as possible in order to pass on their genes. But to use this as an excuse to treat women solely as sexual objects is disingenuous and wrong. This only supports the theists’ contention that atheists are all amoral darwinists. We are moral creatures who have the benefit of intelligence and rational thought to rise above our evolutionary imperatives, especially when they interfere with our ability to responsibly interact with each other.wpid-402c429e71fcb15b380d58cd3ca72867-2011-02-8-16-27.jpg Comment by Jay Walker | February 8, 2011 | Edit | Reply

Atheism and Gender Equality (or lack thereof)

I read a guest blog post at Blag Hag by Sharon Moss, President of the Humanist Community of Central Ohio with Lyz Liddell, Director of Campus Organizing at the Secular Student Alliance, about their experience at the American Atheists’ Southeast Regional Atheist Meet in Huntsville, Alabama. In it, they explain the sexism they encounter while there.

What is ironic is that the sexist attitudes were most evident at a panel about how atheist organizations can attract more women. I’ll let them explain in their own words:

A panel of five guys and one woman discussed what an atheist group should do to attract more women. The all-too-common problem came up of a woman showing up to a meeting and every dude there hitting on her. First, the panelists grabbed a theme that had been floating around all weekend: that men hitting on women is just biological (therefore excusable), making it sound like a woman in that kind of situation should just STFU and get over it.

Then the moderator asked the women in the audience, as if it were a rewording of the same question, whether they would feel harassed or flattered if they showed up to an event and a few guys started flirting with them. We women in the audience, pressured to respond to the question at hand but feeling duped because we knew it wasn’t the same thing, gave an honest response. Sure, a few guys flirting with us is sexy. BUT!!! (we all screamed in our heads, even though the panel never let us say it out loud) 20 guys our father’s age blatantly staring at and talking to our cleavage is a totally different situation! It’s not sexy, it’s gross and creepy.

It was extremely frustrating. So I wasn’t surprised when the young woman who finally stood up and started challenging the panel snapped. First, despite her having her hand raised for most of the discussion, the panel never even acknowledged her or invited her opinion (despite soliciting the opinion of several guys both on and off the panel. Finally, she just stood up and started shouting to make her voice heard. Her question focused on the language the panel had been using – “female” instead of “woman,” and pointed out that it made us sound like livestock rather than people.

But did the panel address the question, perhaps looking for the point at which the discussion took on the word “female” so universally? Did they take the opportunity to discuss how things like language can make a group uncomfortable for women, and what we could do to make it better? No! The woman asking the question was viciously torn apart and ridiculed for even bringing it up. First, a combination of panelists and audience members tried to defend themselves by saying that feminists won’t let men use the word “women” off-limits because it has “men” in it. Then a commotion of everyone talking at once, which was cut off by one panelist’s definitive comment: “What do you want us to say, ‘the weaker sex?”

She got upset (and who wouldn’t be?) and left the room. I – a member of the audience, not one of the event organizers – went after her. While there were a few odd calls from the audience for the panelist to apologize, the moderator sort of awkwardly pushed the discussion on to a new topic, with an embarrassed air of “Sorry for the disturbance.” No apology, no discussing a better way it could have been handled. Not even a joking “This is how *not* to be welcoming” comment. Just “nothing to see here, move along.”
From there, the conversation wandered into a weird discussion about how men’s biology drives them to frequently (if not constantly) pursue sex, and since it’s biology, no one should get upset at, judge, or think less of men for any skirt-chasing they might engage in. (Because we never intellectually overcome our animal instincts in other areas of our biology, right?) The attitude in the room shifted: suddenly women were the bad guys for saying no to men’s propositions because it denies the men’s innate biology. Most of the guys in the room loved it, but as a woman in the audience – it was really uncomfortable. It was demeaning, frustrating, and not what you want to say to attract more women into this movement. And the attitude stuck around.

All these people got presented with a totally skewed perspective on our movement’s views on gender equality and sexuality. The message was loud and clear: it’s totally ok for guys to be assholes. Women should just STFU when men treat them like sex objects. The appropriate way to solve the problem of gender imbalance is to ask a bunch of guys about it (oh, and the entire problem is just because women won’t let men have sex with them whenever they want to). The way to handle women’s input is to ridicule them.

This whole experience would be laughable, like something from a bad Saturday Night Live skit, if it weren’t for the fact that it really happened, and happened in the context of a discussion of how to attract more women to the atheist movement.

This sort of thing makes me ashamed to be a man, not to mention a white, middle-aged, male atheist, and rightly so. The insufferable sense of male privilege permeates the description of the conference and I can only imagine what it must have been like to be a woman in attendance. I can tell you that had I been there I certainly would have, for one, apologized for my insensitive and idiotic fellow white males, and then I would have ripped them a new one for being to fatuously insensitive to 30% of the audience present.

I believe that if atheist organizations want to make their organizations more open and welcoming to women, they need to, first and foremost, actively seek out women to be, not just members, but organizers. I know, that is putting the cart before then horse, but they must at lease try to truly understand the discrimination and sexism that woman face in our society. They need to educate themselves on this subject and take what they learn to heart.

There is no excuse for these kinds of sexist attitudes or behavior at an atheist conference, unless these are some kind of male only atheist organizations, in which case, who needs them?

Religion Kills Another Child

In Bangladesh, a religious cleric ordered a 14 year old girl to be given 100 lashes with a bamboo pole for supposedly having an illicit relationship with a married cousin. The man’s wife said that she saw the girl speaking to her husband near their home and notified the village cleric who order the husband and the girl to undergo the punishment of 100 lashes. The girl collapsed half way through the beating and was taken to hospital where she died a week later.

If this weren’t horrifying enough, the wife tried to claim that her husband was raping the girl and upon hearing the girl’s cries, the wife ran in and began beating the girl. Let me repeat that. Upon supposedly hearing a 14 year old girl being raped by her husband, the wife said that she ran in and beat the girl! The police aren’t buying that story, but what does it say about these people that she would think that beating the girl who was being raped was actually justification for her death?

This incident speaks volumes about the almost non-human status of woman in many religions and cultures. While it may be true that some of the attitude toward women is cultural, it is almost always supported by religious writings and teachings.

Wether the girl was just talking to her cousin, who is a male relative after all, or if there was an illicit relationship ilvolved, murder is not an appropriate punishment, especially for a young, impressionable 14 year old child.

I am reminded of a quote by Nobel laureate and physicist Steven Weinberg:

        “With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil – but for good people to do evil – that takes religion.”

How Tragedy Brings Out The Worse In People

There has been much talk and speculation about the motives for the Shooting of Rep. Giffords and others in Tucson, AZ. The right wingers are falling all over themselves to minimize the possible damage, using ad hominem attacks against just about everyone who is further to the left than Dick Cheney. Meanwhile, those on the left have been making wild speculations about the motives of shooter, sure that he must be a dyed in the wool Tea Partier with a lifetime NRA membership who spits on every homeless person he sees.

Despite all the calls for unity and civility, the reactions have been par for the course for our national discourse of just about every issue out there. It is disheartening and frustrating. Yet, even the most self-serving and stupid reactions from people like Sarah Palin pale when compared with the pure hate and idiocy that reins on the Internet.

I found these comments on the Man Boobz blog:

He [was] probably dumped by a girl and that’s what started him on the road to crazy batshit loonery. I can’t think of any other factor that could more quickly drive a man to violence than women.

And this one:

it pisses me off when i see all this outrage on the news and from the public knowing that if it was a congressMAN who was shot, everyone would be wondering what he did to deserve it.

this really shows you how society values women over men. and she’s not even dead!


And this:

This is yet another example of how Femerica values female lives more than male lives. In the eyes of most Americans, men are less human than women.

The male judge gets a mention because he is a lackey for the interests of the elite. Even though he is dead, since he is a male, his death is presented by the media as less of a tragedy than the non-lethal shooting of a female politician with a good chance for recovery.


The death of the young girl was portrayed as third in line in terms of level of tragedy. By American standards, it was a tragedy because she possessed a vagina, but since she was not grown enough to be a full-fledged feminazi, her death was less of a tragedy than the non-death of the female politician.

These reactions bring douchebagery to a completely new level. The utter hate and contempt for anything female is staggering. I don’t even know where we can begin to address ideas like these.
I normally like to remain upbeat about things, but this whole situation makes me wonder if our society has passed the proverbial point of no return and will eventually tear its self apart from within. I have no words of wisdom today, just sadness and dismay.

French Vouge Goes Way, Way Too Far!

We expect the French to push the boundaries of art. Anyone who saw the crazy costumes at the closing ceremonies for the 1992 Winter Olympics at Albertville can attest to that. Add to that the high esteem they hold Jerry Lewis in, their freaky love of creepy mimes, and Maurice Chevalier and you have a pretty weird and strange artistic bent on display.

Now, though, we have moved from creepy and weird into sick and unconscionable. French Vogue now gives us kindergartners as sexy models. (Warning: the image at this link is disturbing, at least to me and probably every other parent on the planet) Their reasoning?

        “What makeup at what age? What makeup does one wear at 13? What about at 70? Obviously not like one does at 20.”

WFT! Ok, girls are starting to wear makeup young these days. My 12 year old has been wearing it regularly for at least a year. Showing us sexed up pubescent girls is not the way to show the best use of makeup. How about just some head shots of these girls? Why in the world would anyone, beside a pedophile, think to dress these girls like sexy models or starlets?

This is disgusting and morally indefensible. This is just one more example of the media promoting unrealistic female body images we well as grossly inappropriate sexual ideals for young girls.

I just hope the majority of French citizens are as shocked and outraged as I am.

(Thanks to Amanda Marcotte for tweeting this.)

The Manhood Academy Tries To Hide Behind The First Amendment

A criminal complaint has been filed against the owners of The Manhood Academy. This taken from one of the sites of my friend who is the one who has filed the complaint (Please excuse the profanity used by the people from The Manhood Academy, I don’t think the know how to talk civily:

The response received from you is nothing short of a direct threat, and has been treated accordingly.

Your response – for the public record –

[quoting me back to me]

Awesome, you’ve got a trackback and found a couple of my webpages. I’m SO impressed. More impressed that you posted my image (from my sites) without my express permission – and though I’ll grant those sites ARE public, the images themselves are copyrighted. Or are you unfamiliar with terms of use in Internet posting? I also note, interestingly, the images you chose. But that is neither here nor there, honestly. In giving you free publicity, so have you given me some…so thanks. I will ask kindly that you remove the picture with my son in it. As he is a minor (a newborn in the picture) AND that you are guilty of copyrights violations, it’s bad enough that you posted images that you have no ownership rights to…it’s quite another that you posted one of a minor without the express, written permission of the parent.

Yep, that is what I said. You came HERE to THIS page and lifted images of MY child without MY EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF DISPARAGEMENT. And I called you on it. You are welcome to visit MY page at any time. YOUR website is LIKEWISE public. No imagery that is copyrighted by you was pilfered. Your “tutorial” eBook is, by your own words, FREE TO THE PUBLIC. And even with that, you were duly CITED as is expected under the terms of copyright laws. Further YOUR organization is SEEKING PROFIT. Mine is NOT.

Your response:

“basically this crazy cunt is complaining about PUBLIC PICTURES, SHE PUBLICLY POSTED to gain attention for herself. never mind the fact that this hypocritical cunt is POSTING IMAGES FROM OUR SITE WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION. so she feels she can break the law with impunity because feminism told her that all legal consequences fall on the shoulders of MEN–just as we stated in our ebook. this is a perfect textbook example of that.”

<image of a lolzcat/icanhazcheezburger>

[quoting me back to me “Next up…I’m ignoring the vast majority of your “retort”]

<image of cutekitteh>

“OF FUCKING COURSE you’re ignoring it. you don’t have the mental capacity to debate us. no feminist does.

and if you can’t silence us through intellectual debate, the next best thing is to CRIMINALIZE US for daring to speak out publicly against the hypocritical gender policies of feminism.”

[quoting me back to me “Lastly, I will be in contact with your website’s ISP for violations of copyright laws where I and my children are concerned. I don’t rightly care that you “gentlemen” are misogynistic jerks with no self-awareness — the blind leading the stupid, quite frankly. You all are free to believe whatever you choose. However, where you step beyond that right of personal conviction into infringing onto the rights of another? That is where the line is drawn.”]

“yes, you’ve PUBLICLY POSTED YOUR PICTURES ON A PUBLIC FORUM, ALONG WITH THIS INFANT WHO YOU CLAIM TO CARE ABOUT PROTECTING THE IDENTITY OF–LOL–and suddenly you’re becoming self-righteous about people seeing you? typical feminist hypocrisy. meanwhile you have NO PROBLEMS violating copyright claims when it concerns OUR WEBSITE.

make sure you IMMEDIATELY remove any content you posted from this site. you don’t have our permission to use it, you crazy cunt.”

There is nothing I need to remove since nothing I have put up is in copyright violation – as you have said what you have posted is free public content – and you seek PROFIT for your SERVICES outside of the state of California. Again, HUGE difference.

[quoting me back to me: “Update: Letter has been sent – both to the ISP and to the LAPD. In reviewing the content more closely and upon consulting with some professionals in areas of law and criminal behavior, I learned that what is transpiring in that website is actually against the law. Usage of my images is minor, comparatively. So…the letter has been duly sent – and I’m posting this publicly so that nobody can claim “entrapment” or “surprise” by my notifying not only the ISP, but the legal authorities regarding what amounts to a HATE GROUP.

Cheers”]

<image of cute kitteh again>

“just as we told you men–YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS are being threatened by crazy feminist cunts like this.

we warned you: feminists will always try to CRIMINALIZE FREE SPEECH. it’s the only way they can silence the opposition. in a feminists’s delusional mind, your MALE perspective amounts to “HATE SPEECH.” anything you say that STANDS AGAINST the entitlement mentality of feminism WILL BE CRIMINALIZED. in a feminist’s delusional mind, you are no different than Hitler, the KKK, islamic terrorists, etc.”

<image of Adolf Hitler; image of KKK; image of Middle Eastern terrorists>
“dear feminist cunt,

you are NO LONGER ALLOWED to post on this site. if you continue to stalk us and post “hateful” content, we will consider it CRIMINAL HARASSMENT and be contacting your ISP and local authorities regarding your “HATE SPEECH.”

[as we’ve always stated, feminists love to have their cake and eat it too; they want the protection of the law when it suits their selfish interests, yet they have no problem violating the law.]”

As is typical with people who try to spin truth, Professor Plum has confused what he has done (illegal) with what I have done (legal)…and has tried a blatant and direct threat this time.

Of course, I responded – especially since he pilfered images of MINE to use in a denigrative fashion against me – which he is NOW trying to construe as “stalking” wpid-lol-2011-01-2-16-421.gif

My response:

“Actually, I posted no images of your website. I stayed within the law by quoting and giving credit back to authorship. Specifically.

What I do in an art site that is nothing to do with your page here is not open for your discretion to post anywhere.

Further, your weak attempts at intimidation and pressure of silencing someone who exposes your “Academy” for the hate group that it is only brings forth a letter to the proper authorities – in this case, the LAPD. You took images from my page. Images that I own the copyrights for. For disparagement and insulting purposes.

You do not have that authority or that right. And you have been thusly reported.

You don’t like that? That’s your problem, not mine.

We’re through here. Blither on all you like…but every single comment you make is saved for documentation and reporting purposes. I don’t stoop to the level of abusers through tactics of insidious and implicit intimidation. I simply handle these matters through appropriate legal channels.

Good day.”

Now then. This is being filed as a direct police report to the Los Angeles Police Department – not a cc’d email, though the ISP will be notified as well.