Atheism’s shocking woman problem: What’s behind the misogyny of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris?

[cbayer]

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/03/new_atheisms_troubling_misogyny_the_pompous_sexism_of_richard_dawkins_and_sam_harris_partner/

FRIDAY, OCT 3, 2014 07:58 AM EDT

As a movement, New Atheism seems like it would be so compatible with feminism — and yet that hasn't been the case

AMANDA MARCOTTE, ALTERNET


Richard Dawkins (Credit: AP/Manish Swarup)

This article originally appeared on AlterNet.

At first blush, it would seem that an atheist movement would be exactly the sort of thing that would attract many women. After all, much of the oppression of women—from forced veiling to restricting abortion rights—is a direct result of religion. Unsurprisingly, then, feminism has a long tradition of outspoken atheists and religious skeptics within its ranks.Suffragist Elizabeth Cady Stanton preferred “rational ideas based on scientific facts” to “religious superstition.” Major feminist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir argued that belief in God exists in part to “repress any impulse toward revolt in the downtrodden female.” Modern feminist writer Katha Pollitt received the “Emperor Has No Clothes” award from the Freedom From Religion Foundation in 2001, where she said that religion is dangerous because “it connects with very terrible social energies that have lain in civilization for a very long time.”

But despite the natural and cozy fit of atheism and feminism, the much-ballyhooed “New Atheism” that was supposed to be a more aggressive, political form of atheism has instead been surprisingly male-dominated. The reason has, in recent years, become quite apparent: Many of the most prominent leaders of the New Atheism are quick to express deeply sexist ideas. Despite their supposed love of science and rationality, many of them are nearly as quick as their religious counterparts to abandon reason in order to justify regressive views about women.

Sam Harris, a prominent atheist author who has previously been criticized for his knee-jerk Islamophobic tendencies, recently came under fire when he added women to the category of people he makes thoughtless generalizations about. Washington Post religion reporter Michelle Boorstein interviewed Harris, and during the interview she asked him why most atheists are male. “There’s something about that critical posture that is to some degree instrinsically male and more attractive to guys than to women.” He added, “The atheist variable just has this— it doesn’t obviously have this nurturing, coherence-building extra estrogen vibe that you would want by default if you wanted to attract as many women as men.”

There was an immediate uproar among female atheists, and understandably so, as Harris didn’t even consider that it could be atheism that has a problem, instead immediately assuming that the problem is women themselves. His reaction to the criticism, which was immediate and probably a bit overwhelming was not, however, a demonstration of the tough “critical posture” he characterized as “instrinsically male.” Harris replied to his criticswith a hyper-defensive and tediously long blog post titled, “I’m Not The Sexist Pig You’re Looking For.” His strategy for disproving accusations of sexism was to engage in more sexist declarations, in the time-honored bigot strategy of saying it’s not bigotry if it’s true.

more at link

[arcane1]

1. Why does every atheist always have to answer for these two jerks?

How's "Christianity's shocking child-rape problem" for an attention-getting headline?

[cbayer]

4. Did you read the article by any chance.

IMO, it's a really good review and analysis of the problems within (loosely) organized atheism and she talks about others as well.

The RCC's issues around pedophilia and child rape get quite a bit of attention here. I think when self-identified catholics take up the call on that issue, they are particularly worth listening to.

And I think Amanda Marcotte should be listened to as well.

[Feral Child]

10. I read it. The title doesn't reflect the article.

Several outspoken atheists have made thoughtless, misogynistic comments.

They're not "leaders", unless it's of their private little club.

Atheism, by it's very nature, rejects leaders, dogma, or unity.

People keep wanting to equate it to a "religion". It isn't. No "churches", no preaching, no dogma. No sinners, no saints. Atheism is just a refusal to accept the existence of a deity or deities by individuals. That is the single qualifier.

This article is sensationalist nonsense.

[cbayer]

12. She may not have written the headline, but it is a bit

over-dramatic, I agree.

I do not agree that atheism by it's very nature rejects leaders, dogma or unity. I think the only thing one can say about the very nature of atheism is that it rejects god.

There are a growing number of organizations, meetings, local and national groups and even weekly services. Some will join, others will not, but one can not deny their existence.

Leaders aren't always chosen or elected. They are the ones that rise to prominence as spokespeople. Whether they represent anyone's particular atheism or not doesn't generally matter, they are seen by the general public as leaders.

And, as such, I think they have a responsibility to take a stand on this issue.

I also don't agree that people want to equate atheism to religion. The ones who are forming groups that have similarities to religious groups are atheists, not believers.

You can dismiss the article as sensationalist nonsense or you can take the opportunity to hear what many outspoken female atheists like Amanda Marcotte are saying. And their voices are increasingly being join by outspoken male atheists.

There is an opportunity to be and do something different than the rejected religious organizations have been and done.

Ms. Marcotte puts that together eloquently, imo.

[Feral Child]

23. I suppose you've made some valid points.

I can't conceive any attempt to organize atheists. There doesn't seem to be any real consensus on a "platform".

As I mentioned elsewhere, some folks just seem to need a "club". Hang over from our primate heritage, we're a clannish species.

It's likely that I'm simply unaware of those social structures within atheism, but it may just be my own misanthropic nature rather than atheists in general.

Still, the idea of "services" is so pathetically ludicrous that I find it inconceivable. To be honest, I thought that this was a null meme, promoted by the Saved to try to undermine the validity of atheism, "Oh, it's just a different religion." It certainly is not, or at least, should not be. I don't worship "science", I merely believe that it explains things a lot better than Bronze Age mysticism.

Again, perhaps I'm wrong. I have to admit that I don't read any Expert Atheists, nor subscribe to "Atheist Today" (if such a thing exists). Again, the concept is preposterous. What's to say except I don't think God, or groups of gods, exist except in the fevered imagination of frightened people? There's no dogma or revelation, from my POV. To me, it's just obvious and I don't need to discuss it. (It may appear as if I'm discussing it, but the real topic is whether our "leaders" incorporate misogyny in their "Gospel." I don't believe we have "leaders", I certainly don't, and (again, to me) misogyny is the antithesis of atheism. There's no scientific basis for misogyny, it's based solely on (diseased) emotions. The Outspoken Few that allude to the concept are self-deluded.

I thank you for your information but I'm not going to spend much time contemplating it. I have not the slightest interest in any organization of atheists. My idea of a "service" would be someone standing at a podium and saying, "There is no god.", everyone else agreeing, and then we all go our separate ways again.


.

[cbayer]

50. Your position is just fine and i hope that you will embrace those that see it differently.

I don't think being clannish is primitive at all. I think it is a powerful evolutionary force, particularly for humans.

Services don't speak to you? No problem. Condemning or attacking those that they do speak to, a problem, imo.

I don't think you should spend much time contemplating this. There may come a point in your life when you do, but if it is not now, so bet it.

Hopefully you have found your unique and valuable space when it come to religion. And, hopefully, you will understand that everyone has to find their own space in that regard.

I truly do not believe that there are winners and losers here. There is an opportunity, as liberal/progressive activists, to hold hands with those who share different views on religion but agree on greater issues.

I am often ridiculed for my kumbayah attitude, but I am very comfortable with it.

[Feral Child]

65. I've not attacked anyone.

Thanks for your advice about not spending time contemplating "this", but it's needless advice. I don't bother thinking about it and haven't since I was 9 or 10; ie, about the time I became capable of critical thought.

I didn't come into this discussion to discuss religion; I was interested in the thread because the title had two highly erroneous factors:

1. That there is a "leadership" in Atheism that speaks with authority and
2. the conflation of atheism with misogyny.

I don't know what your belief system is and don't really care. I've addressed you as if speaking to an atheist because I believe that any other belief system is dishonest and I choose to treat you with respect.

I "tolerate" believers by ignoring their beliefs. I cannot, in clear conscience, "respect" those of us that need the comfort of believing in magic. Leaving them with their credulity intact is the best I can do.

As to the ridicule for your kumbayah-ism: Knock yourself out. If you want to reach out in the name of solidarity, that's cool with me. I'll continue to try to ensure solidarity by being parsimonious on the subject.

[cbayer]

68. It's been nice talking to you and I respect your position for the most part.

We don't agree about there being leadership in organized atheism. There clearly is and I think some change is badly needed.

My only other issue with you is some of the terms you use to describe religious believers - like dishonest, believers in magic. My position is that there is equal weight to arguments that a god exists and that a god does not exist. In short, there is none. So I think both theists and atheists hold positions that should be not just tolerated, but respected.

[cleanhippie]

82. "We don't agree about there being leadership in organized atheism. There clearly is..."

[rug]

83. Of course there;s not.

http://www.atheistalliance.org/about-aai

[YoungDemCA]

19. "Atheism, by it's very nature, rejects leaders, dogma, or unity. "

Uh-huh.

[frylock]

20. you've made a compelling argument..

food for thought to be sure.

[Feral Child]

21. Rather laconic response.

Not sure if you're agreeing or expressing skepticism.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. If you've got a bus, I'll throw dawkins under it.

No skin off my ass. No one speaks for me, I speak for myself.
I don't need anyone else's words or ideas to express my personal ideology, or speak to the universe and what I perceive as my place in it. Nor do I need fellow-travelers, though it is nice to have friends, but even If I stood completely alone, I would remain standing.

[Feral Child]

25. I've recanted.

See my Post #12, if you're interested. Else, have a nice weekend, I'm off.

[LeftishBrit]

64. As such, it does. That doesn't mean that individual atheists might not have their 'gurus'...

but there is no unified atheist movement. And as I've pointed out before, atheism certainly does not depend on Richard Dawkins, or any of the other current atheist 'spokesmen'. Many an atheist has never heard of them. Most atheists do not follow and read their writings, listen to their speeches, etc.

Atheism did not suddenly come into existence 10 years ago. Sam Harris' 'The End of Faith' was published in 2004; Dawkins' 'The God Delusion' in 2006; and Hitchens' 'God is Not Great' in 2007. Atheism was very common, certainly in the UK, long before that.

Sexism is unfortunately pretty common, especially in older males, whether atheist, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc. Atheism, just like religion, does not cure all moral and social evils; and that is not its purpose; it is just a lack of belief in a god.

[Starboard Tack]

130. +100 nt

[Brettongarcia]

67. If you are a male who values science, but found proportionately few women in that field - then what?

If you are a male who values science highly, and find that there are few women in science; then would that be a reason for putting down women? Along with other people who don't know science?

In such a case, would you be discriminating not against women per se; but simply against those classes of people who - proportionately - don't know science?

That's an interesting question. Maybe this starts to get close to the cause of this.

[rug]

77. Do a search. You'll find hundreds of those posts in this Group alone.

[Ken Burch]

102. Because they're the Athi-Popes?

[okasha]

105. Sorry, name's already taken.

Look 'em up.

[Ken Burch]

121. Not "antipope"..."Athi-pope"-as if athiests had one of their own now. n/t.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

117. "Christianity's shocking child-rape problem" is a great example of the logical fallacy

Of Tu Quoque.

Something along the lines of "Yes, some atheists are sexist jerks, and it is their problem" would be more honest.

[trotsky]

2. If atheism has a "shocking" woman problem...

what does the Catholic Church have?

At least the "atheist movement" (whatever the fuck that is) has female leaders too.

[Fred Sanders]

7. Yes, calling the atheist movement anti-women based on some word scramble sentences

said by exactly TWO people versus the anti-women policies of organized religions is kind of weak.

[Kalidurga]

3. I didn't realize there was an atheist movement.

I belong to the no Santa club. And occasionally I practice a disbelief in elves.

[cbayer]

5. Well, there is, but I don't think there is any expectation that you join it.

[Lordquinton]

6. Another hit piece on Dawkins

How original.

[cbayer]

8. Hit piece? Do you take issue with Amanda Marcotte?

Do you dismiss her concerns?

Sometimes when everyone says you have a tail, you should turn around and look. A lot of people seem to think that a few of the people discussed in this article have a tail.

Can you not see it?

[Lordquinton]

15. The Pope is even worse than Dawkins

yet we don't have a daily thread about his issues, in fact when ever he comes up (in it's thousand+ year history there has never been a female pope, so maybe an article about that? no?) it's nothing but apologetics, or ignoring it and posting another thread about how horrible atheists are.

I can see your agenda very clearly.

[cbayer]

16. We have threads about the pope. We have threads

about muslim groups. We have threads about atheism. We have threads about Dawkins.

So what? I don't think there is a preponderance of any of these and would challenge you to provide evidence that there is.

Feel free to put up a post about there never have been a female pope. No one is stopping you.

This thread is written by an atheist. She sees a problem and is writing about it. It is not her intent or mine to simply say that atheists are horrible. But the inability to recognize this particular problem and the dismissal by so many, including some who post here, simply highlights the problem.

Your view of my agenda is grossly distorted, but that will not come as any surprise to pretty much anyone, because it is your agenda that is clear.

[mr blur]

29. You know, you really should check your link with reality. It seems to be missing.

[cbayer]

31. Check my link with reality? Are you suggesting that your take on what is going on with women

in these organizations is more valid than theirs?

If thats the case, you are right that something is missing.

Only sycophants continue to worship a sinking ship. Bon voyage.

[rug]

79. There are numerous threads daily on that.

And even more in replies on other topics. As you've just demonstrated.

[rug]

78. Some things need to be hit.

[BillZBubb]

9. This is baloney. Atheism has no woman problem. There is no dogma concerning women.

Some atheists no doubt have sexist views. It has absolutely nothing to do with their atheism.

[cbayer]

13. So all those female atheists who are complaining loudly and eloquently

and in unison are just making this up?

Of course sexism has nothing to do with atheism, and she makes no such case out all.

It's just that some who have been identified as spokespeople and leaders have exhibited some inexcusably sexist behavior.

There is an opportunity to do something different here, to do this much better than the rejected traditional religious groups have done it.

Saying there is not problem just highlights and exacerbates the problem.

[BillZBubb]

22. There are no "spokepeople" or "leaders" for atheists. That is baloney.

This is a phony issue that has nothing to do with atheism. Whoever the female atheists are trying to make this case are misguided. If they want to attack atheists who are also sexists, more power to them, but don't attempt to call them leaders or spokespeople. They are neither-they are individuals with their own opinions who happen to be well known atheists.

[kwassa]

30. These are two of the most influential atheists around. Leadership is irrelevent.

This does not mean that sexism has nothing to do with atheism. If prominent atheists voice sexist views, then that is important.

[BillZBubb]

36. Nonsense.

Sexism has NOTHING TO DO WITH ATHEISM. How hard is that to understand. Geez. There is no dogma in atheism that says because there is no God, women must be or can be or should be (fill in your favorite gripe).

Atheists have all sorts of views outside of their position that there is no God. But nothing in that position leads to sexism. There is no connection.

If a few media happy atheists pronounce something sexist, it only means that they are sexist and that is all. Their atheism is immaterial.

[kwassa]

44. Why? Because you say so?

Many atheists clearly look up to these two men, if merely to judge by their book sales and popularity in their public speaking. If they express sexist views, and their is no repudiation by these other atheists, this would suggest approval of those views by other atheists.

[cbayer]

51. And that is exactly the problem, isn't it.

There isn't even dogma or distorted interpretation of sacred writings to legitimatize this sexism.

But it is coming from individuals that are widely seen as representative of the atheist community whether you like it or not.

And whether you like it or not, there will be some assumption made about atheists in general when the loudest atheists spew sexist garbage.

Therein lies the argument for criticizing them when they do it.

[Starboard Tack]

131. Sounds like you are agreeing

I don't think anyone suggested that atheism was, in any way, about sexism. You are defending against your own imagination. The thread is about individuals who are considered leading voices in New Atheism. It's about cleaning house.

[cbayer]

32. Unfortunately, it's not baloney. Just google it.

It has everything to do with atheism. \

The female atheists are misguided? Well, how patronizing of you.

[BillZBubb]

37. It is baloney, and it isn't patronizing to say someone is misguided when they are.

It has nothing to do with atheism. Again, there is not logical path that atheism results in misogyny or sexism.

What is laughable is the original title about atheist "leaders" and "spokespeople". That is a statement no atheist would make. There are no leaders, there are no spokespeople.

[cbayer]

40. It's very telling when one calls women who are complaining of misogyny "misguided".

I agree that it has nothing to do with atheism. In fact, I think atheists demographically are less likely to be sexist than the general population.

But as you are so beautifully illustrate here, one can be outside the demographic profile and be atheist and sexist.

No surprise there.

And It's pretty hilarious when someone makes a statement as if they speak for all atheists. Do you not think Amanda Marcotte is a "true atheist"?

[procon]

28. What???

Since there is no organized atheist association, how can there be atheist "leaders? Who are these people of whom you speak that have surreptitiously hijacked atheism and named a spokespeople without my knowledge or consent?

All I see is a blogger who is trying desperately to stuff a square peg in a round hole to earn a paycheck. So I do say to you that the unrelated and irrelevant opinions of a few celebrities do not a "problem" make for those of us who do not fancy omniscient deities on high.

[cbayer]

34. What?? There are lots of organized atheist associations.

Dawkins heads one of the largest.

Just because you are not aware of this doesn't mean it's not real.

You are calling Amanda Marcotte desperate and only doing this to earn a paycheck?

You are part of the problem.

[BillZBubb]

38. What is the problem?

[cbayer]

41. Well, since I have no idea what you mean by that question,

I have no answer.

[procon]

47. Thank you for such a convincing and succinct response.

Be it ever so humble, let me try to clarify as best I can; whilst atheists and humanists are similar, they are not one and the same. There is a difference. The British Humanist Association which you alluded to, and other similar groups, are nontheists which certainly includes some atheists, but they have a much broader appeal that also includes agnostics or just those who remain skeptical about the God thing, while adding a social and moral philosophical component.


Therefore, the purest form of atheism to which many like myself subscribe to, is simply a bare bones philosophical stance that says no supernatural deities exist. Period. It has no contingent moral obligations, which generally remain a separate personal conviction that differs from one individual to the next.


It often comes as a surprise that we atheists don't all share the same philosophy, and I understand why this concept might be confusing in our one-size-fits-all society where we often get shoehorned in with humanists to more easily fit the narrative of bloggers rushing to meet a deadline.

[cbayer]

49. One thing I have found is that no matter how many labels one applies to

themselves or others, no one is one and the same.

Labels lead to dogma and prejudice.

I agree that the most simplistic definition of atheist is very simple - no belief in god.

It often comes to a surprise to non-believers that christians, et all. don't all share the same philosophy.

The christians and muslims and jews, et al., all carry the same burden as non-believer.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

119. Pat Buchanan and I both call ourselves Catholics

But our beliefs have remarkably little in common. Yet, in this very forum, I have seen atheists paint all Catholics -- indeed, all believers -- as marching in lockstep. I had one atheist ask me what the essential difference was between Teilhard de Chardin and a Primitive Baptist.

So yes, I agree that atheists are a diverse group, with little in common except disbelief in God. I would just ask that the atheists who would paint all believers with the same brush not to do so.

[cbayer]

120. I am in agreement with you.

The tendency to put all believers in one box is objectionable, as is the tendency to put all non-believers in one box.

It is a weak argument proffered by those who have the need to villianize the "other".

[rug]

80. "the purest form of atheism"?

[procon]

99. Is it only my vocabulary that provokes your intolerence?

Again, my apologies for any perceived lack of language clarity. Taken out of context like that, I can certainly see how a phrase would be confusing without the rest of that particular paragraph you omitted. Of course it's your choice, but if adding the missing words, "simply a bare bones philosophical stance that says no supernatural deities exist. Period", isn't enough, I'll try again in the hope of generating understanding and tolerance with the goal of eliminating the need to mock those you disagree with.


When I say "the purest form of atheism" its merely another way of explaining unadulterated atheism that is without any other sentiments, nonessential attachments or extraneous modifiers such as might be found in humanism philosophies.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

118. You remind me of the members of the Catholic hierarchy

Who insisted that there was no pedophilia problem. Nope, it was invented by the media, by enemies of the Church, by a few disgruntled Catholics. But there really isn't anything to see, move along.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. "There was an immediate uproar among female atheists"

Unfair to ignore the uproar from other male Atheists as well, like PZ Meyers.

[longship]

35. Indeed, PZ has been particularly vocal about this.

I stand with Rebecca Watson and PZ and Amanda Marcott and all those who say that there is no room for misogyny in atheism.

It is a black mark which we will all regret.

[cbayer]

39. Nice to see you longship and particularly nice to see that

you don't stand with those that just dismiss this and the women who are raising the issue.

I'm not surprised, because I know what you are about.

I am back in the USA for a bit and glad to be here. Stocking up for the winter?

[longship]

42. Always nice to see you, too.

I confess that I have been remiss in posting in the group recently. I hope to change that now that the weather here is changing. We've had a very cool summer here and now I shudder considering what this winter may bring. One thing is for sure, I will spend a lot of time at home, no doubt snowed in.

My best regards,
Your buddy.

[cbayer]

45. I am glad to hear that your summer has presented you with things more

inviting than DU.

And also glad to hear that winter will bring you around more.

[Warren Stupidity]

46. as others have tediously pointed out, atheism, the lack of belief in gods,

has nothing at all to do with misogyny, nothing. It is entirely neutral. Some atheist are sexist pigs, some aren't. There is exactly as much room for feminism as there is for misogyny within atheism: none at all or infinite, take your pick, as both are orthogonal to a lack of belief in gods. Similarly atheism is also silent about other progressive values, thus you can have rightwing atheists, Penn Gillette for example, an atheist, a rightwing liberloon, and by many reports quite the anti-feminist. Lack of belief in gods implies little else besides a lack of belief in gods.

[longship]

48. I fully concur.

There are jerks in any socio-political movement. I like Dawkins for his biology and I like The God Delusion very much along with his biology books. But he seems to have a real problem when speaking off-the-cuff. He has stuck his foot in his mouth so often recently that I just have to shake my head and ponder, "what the fuck is he thinking?"

But I stand with PZ, Rebecca, and the others, that one should speak out against such lunacy. Feminism is a real thing. People need to get used to it.

I am both a lifelong atheist and a lifelong feminist -- taught at my mother's knee with concurrence from my father (and I was born in 1948!).

[hunter]

14. Renouncing religion isn't the same as renouncing the culture it exists within.

One can be a regressive, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, racist, or fascist ass with or without religion.

All the rotten cultural baggage of "Christian Society" doesn't magically drop away when a person identifies themselves as an atheist.

[cbayer]

17. That's exactly right,

and that's why it is important for these newer organizations (that are composed of a fairly liberal demographic group) should pay close attention and avoid repeating all the ugly baggage of previous organizations.

[edgineered]

27. The movement to organize exists

It exists for those without an understanding of atheism, and it will continue to attract followers from that sector of the population. We atheists who understand atheism as a disbelief and nothing more would never join.

cb, as evidenced by the activity of the two posts today, we true atheists are paying close attention, in particular because what we see is not the avoidance of repeating all the ugly baggage; it is being dumped on our laps by organizers and those who acknowledge them. This has to stop.

[cbayer]

33. I disagree. I see great potential in organized atheism.

Churches and other religious groups often fill a void that no one else is willing to fill. I would be very glad to see atheist organizations or interfaith organizations that include nonbelievers step up to the plate.

I don't think you can speak for atheists that understand atheism. I think the atheists that are involved in organizations are just as knowledgable as you. Are you saying that Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, et al do not understand atheism? They are highly involved in organizations.

This "true atheist" think is really bothersome. I would hope that non-believers would recognize that there are a lot of variations and express acceptance and understanding. Instead, what I am seeing is increasingly strict criteria about what it means to be a "true atheist".

This has to stop.

[YoungDemCA]

18. Exactly. Yet a lot (not all, certainly, but a fair number) of self-described atheists....

...seem to pride themselves on being more enlightened, more rational, and more progressive than the rest of the population. It's arrogant bullshit.

[cbayer]

43. It's a very small group and not at all representative of atheists in general.

It's good to challenge them, but also good to recognize that they don't speak for anyone but themselves.

[rurallib]

26. I think they are in a different sect from me.

meant as a bad attempt at humor

[cbayer]

52. Lol, i got your joke.

[BlueJazz]

53. I've been looking on the web for the ratio of male atheists to female atheist but have found no..

...scientific study on the subject. I have found that the majority of people who are asked the above question say: There's way more men than women who do not believe.
I'd love to see a definitive answer to the question.

[cbayer]

54. The most reliable and believable demographics show that males constitute about two thirds

of the self identified atheist population.

Of course, there could be many reasons for this, including that it might be easier for men to "come out".

In terms of who is involved in activist atheist, that is a harder question. Those who are better known are male. The line up of speakers at conferences and sellers of books and active on the lecture circuit seem to be predominantly male.

But the women that are involved in the activist side are pretty pissed off these days.

And, imo, that is the crux of the matter.

[BlueJazz]

56. The thought did cross my mind was perhaps the ratio you quoted might be a lot closer ...

...than what we think. The (flimsy) theory being that a large percentage of women who are searching for a mate/husband desire traits like Strong, Decisive, Powerful..etc...which is what God is suppose to be.
I was reading an article the other day about "What attracts Men to Women" by some Doctor of anthropology.
He was talking about unconscious things that men and women do to attract a mate.

Anyway, having said the above with more of a question than anything else, I expect to be pounced on for being a gutless, disgusting rat-pig.

Ps..Yes, I am an Atheist.

[cbayer]

57. I'm not so sure it has to do with women wanting a "god"

or godlike creature in their life.

I think it's just easier to be a believer than a nonbeliever in many areas of our county, and when it's difficult, it's generally more difficult for the women.

And as women are often primarily responsible for the care and entertainment of children. religious groups often offer that.

Women have been fighting this battle for a long time. When it comes to male dominated organizations, so little appears to have changed in the last 50 years.

[BlueJazz]

59. Good points. Your words ring true. I DO know that when I go to my other country (Australia)

..(dual citizen)..the women speak more openly of being an Atheist so perhaps it's not just areas of a country but also, the world?
Again..I don't know. Just curious.

getting sleepy..

[cbayer]

60. Australia is very, very interesting when it comes to religion.

I know that you know that.

My father, a christian minister, went there adn taught at a seminary for awhile.

And Australian women are much more clear about being equals, imo.

Have a wonderful sleep, BlueJazz. Its' been my pleasure to talk to you.

[rug]

81. Here's some raw data.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/11/sex-differences-in-global-atheism-part-n/

[BlueJazz]

85. Yes, I was absolutely correct in my assumption. Except everything was Ass-Backwards.

[Hari Seldon]

55. This was the subject of the sermon at atheist church

said no one ever.

[cbayer]

58. Welcome to DU and to the religion group, Hari Seldon.

Though I really have no idea what you are saying here, I am happy that you are participating.

[immoderate]

61. So what is it about atheism that makes Richard Dawkins a misogynist?

I don't see the causality.

--imm

[cbayer]

62. There is nothing about atheism that make RD a misogynist.

And nothin in this article or this thread suggests any such thing.

But RD is a notorious person when it comes to atheism and he is, imo, a sexist.

That's the point of the article.

I think if more people who identified as atheist challenged him on this, he might change his tune.

But as long as there is a continent who keep high fiving him, perhaps he will not.

[immoderate]

63. Yes, I will allow that RD's personal sensibilities are somewhat provincial, however...

He really has no power here. And his statements have little effect on anybody. I hope someone can take him aside and enlighten him. But I think at best he will see those things as trivial. I wouldn't seek Richard out as an authority on sexism, nor do I think he sees its significance. Nor is it why I read his books, dry though they be.

--imm

[cbayer]

72. Here is the issue, imo.

When you ask people who are prominent atheists, Dawkins is probably the most likely name to come up. That gives him the bully pulpit and what he says carries weight.

He absolutely trivializes it and even doubles down when challenged.

Some atheist activists are very committed to providing groups and activities that will help "closeted" atheists come out and find a community with like minded individuals. When there is sexism, you exclude a large number of possible participants.

I agree that Dawkins does not see this a significant, but I think he would be happiest in a room full of clones of himself, lol.

[muriel_volestrangler]

73. I think the article title does rather suggest that:

"Atheism’s shocking woman problem: What’s behind the misogyny of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris?"
It's saying something is behind his misogyny, and it says it's atheism's problem.

I think Dawkins does get challenged on it, but he isn't changing his tune, because he is stubborn. These boorish tweets seem to me to be continued attempts to justifiy his earlier positions, or to try to find some way he can criticise his own critics.

[cbayer]

74. You and I both know that titles are written to attract attention

and that the author sometimes nothing to say about how a piece is titled.


But, even so, I don't read the title the way you do. To me it says that there is a problem, the problem exists within some atheist organizations and that Dawkins and Harris, as individuals, are responsible for some of it. I don't see anything to suggest that atheism, per se, is the root of the problem.

Stubborn is a very kind way of putting it. He bristles noticeably when criticized and tends to just double down. It would be lovely for him to acknowledge that there is a problem and that he is a part of it. He could do something good here.

[edhopper]

66. I do find the misogynistic tenets

of Atheism disturbing. Now I know not all atheists accept all the aspects of atheism. Some only choose the laws they feel are good.
But given how misogynistic Atheism is, why do people still belong to the Atheist religion.

[cbayer]

69. I know you are being sarcastic, but no one has suggested

that there are misogynistic tenets in atheism, only that there are some very vocal atheists who appear to have sexist, if not misogynistic, tendencies.

And like those that stay with their church, there are those from within organized groups that are addressing that issue and trying to change things from inside.

[edhopper]

70. I was mocking the title

(which is Salon's and not yours)

Atheism doesn't have a misogyny problem, a couple of prominent atheists might, but "atheism" doesn't.
And there is no misogynistic creed within atheism, and it is condemn within the groups when brought out.
Do you know of any atheist groups that are overtly misogynistic? (or even primarily covertly?)


As opposed to most of the worlds organized religions, which do have a problem.

[cbayer]

71. I think most male dominated organizations are at risk

for having a misogyny problem. This can be a particular problem at meetings and conferences where people tend to socialize with alcohol.

The atheist groups and conferences are not different, but there is an opportunity to make a change here.

I salute those, both women and men, who are standing up to this, but I am greatly disappointed by those who deny or dismiss it.

There are lots of reports of individuals behaving in a very sexist or misogynistic way. Some atheist groups have developed protocols to expressly address and prohibit this. Others are being very dismissive.

There is not question that the same problems exist within organized religion. Is that the bar we want to meet, or do we want organized atheist groups to do better?

[Brettongarcia]

75. Typically males do better at science and math; at school and in the professions

Often by a huge margin. For this reason perhaps, they tend to be somewhat dismissive of women - or anyone who does not have a very high level of commitment to, and achievement in, these fields.

From this perspective, it might appear to many that if atheists have a woman problem, the problem is the fault of women; who just have not bothered to master these crucial skills.

What do you think should be done about this? Does this characterize the problem correctly?

[cbayer]

76. Your premise is entirely wrong and your analysis overtly sexist.

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/04/girls-grades.aspx

[rug]

86. +1

[Brettongarcia]

87. "For math, science, boys lead on achievement tests while girls do better on classroom grades"

Thanks for the correction. From your own chosen source though, women do better on grades - but 1) boys do better on more objective achievement tests. Which are probably graded on a more absolute scale; having less to do with local social cooperation in the classroom environment.

In addition, other research shows that 2) men do much better, once they actively enter these professions.

How do you account for this difference? In the past, 3) scientists liked to cite larger brain size, on average, in males. Though more recently the importance of this metric has been questioned, recent data does seem to confirm larger size. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/13/do-men-really-have-bigger-brains-than-women-one-study-found-out/

[cbayer]

89. Please present the evidence to support your #2 assertion.

I really don't think I am going to be able to discuss this with you. The overt sexism on display is something I choose not to engage.

[Brettongarcia]

90. Standard statistical surveys say there are far more males than females in science professions

At higher levels.

It has been very widely noted and repeatedly confirmed, that the scientific and mathematical professions are dominated by males. So in effect, thanks to a higher level of professional involvement, males have a higher level of professional achievement there.

To cite one source on this, at random: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/09/10/2599491/women-stem/

In response to about six or seven, recent, repeated DU attacks on male atheists, these statistics should probably be cited.

[cbayer]

91. What 6 or 7 recent repeated DU attacks on male atheists are you referring to?

[Brettongarcia]

92. Attacks on Richard Dawkins, and by extension, male atheists; as sexist

[cbayer]

93. How is criticism of Richard Dawkins an attack on male atheists in general?

Most of the argument here has centered on how he is not a leader and doesn't speak for atheists in general.

But you are taking a 180 degree turn on that and saying that he somehow stands in for all male atheists.

Is this also an attack on all british males? On all male scientists? On all males who use twitter?

What a ridiculous conflation.

[Brettongarcia]

94. In at least four of these articles by Rug, the aim was to hint that Atheism in general was sexist

Using Dawkins as a general symbols for all atheists, it was suggested for example, that atheism has a "misogyny" problem. This notion is reflected in the current article: "As a movement, New Atheism seems like it would be so compatible with feminism — and yet that hasn't been the case."

Yes it was easy to 1) simply debunk the notion that Dawkins is typical of male atheists. But finally 2) I'm adding a close look now, at actual data. Suggesting reasons for this problem.

I'm looking for reasons why scientists might feel that women are not performing as well as they should, in these fields. Reasons why they do not embrace the rational/scientific basis of atheism, or atheism in general, at the same rate as males.

[rug]

95. You must be rather sensitive to infer that.

Or insecure.

[Brettongarcia]

96. Read your own articles. Including, at random, the present one:

"As a movement, New Atheism seems like it would be so compatible with feminism — and yet that hasn't been the case"

Clearly these articles intend to reflect on atheism as a whole; "as a movement."

[rug]

107. Specifically, he's referring to "new atheism" not atheism.

There is a palpable difference.

[cbayer]

98. You are making an accusatory claim without evidence.

Again, it has been stated repeatedly in this very thread that Dawkins is not a general symbol for all atheists. This article is about a small group of individuals. Neither the author nor rug made an extension to all male atheists.

The problem is easily explained in Dawkins case. It is his age, his education and his class status that primarily underlie his sexism. It has nothing at all to do with his atheism, imo.

Nice talking with you. I have nothing further to say.

[Brettongarcia]

101. Clearly these articles are attempting to generalize Dawkin's example; to condemn all atheists

These articles speak over and over of this problem as a problem not just for Dawkins, but for all of atheism. Yet another example: "atheism is having a sexist" tantrum. Not "Dawkins" is having a tantrum. But "Atheism" in effect, in general:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218154352

Another article entitled roughly "Will Misogyny Bring Down the Atheist Movement?" makes it clear that many are now characterizing all of atheism as sexist: "Thanks to the internet, and to popular authors like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Sam Harris, atheism has greater visibility than at any time since the 18th-century Enlightenment. Yet it is now cannibalizing itself. For the past several years, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and online forums have become hostile places for women who identify as feminists or express concern about widely circulated tales of sexism in the movement."

"The movement" as a whole, "atheism" in general, is said to be more visible than ever; but to be "cannibalizing itself" due to widespread misogyny.

Clearly these articles, that are repeatedly advanced here by Rug, are tarring much of the movement. With a very broad brush.

[rug]

115. I was looking for a broader brush but you beat me to it.

[Brettongarcia]

122. Actually?

I probably SHOULD have specified that we're talking mostly about New Atheists. But?

I'm just borrowing a natural convention that was now and then adopted by many of the half dozen articles you and others (Ms. cbayer?) have insistently presented on this matter of Dawkins etc.. Most of these articles slide now and then into the seemingly natural standpoint that "atheists" - most atheists in our own time - are in effect New Atheists.

So when they condemn "atheists," NA's are actually their implied target.

Seems like a reasonable connection. Though for that matter, the authors themselves should have clarified it. Their often (if not always) qualified condemnation of just "atheists," is a little confusing and inaccurate. And I'm sorry I simply borrowed their language for a moment. Without explicitly noting some inherent confusions that might come from it.

You might likewise have noted some conceptual problems with your own articles, as you posted them.

[rug]

123. Does the posting of articles about atheism, by atheists, disturb you?

Do you feel persecuted?

[Brettongarcia]

124. Having these re-posed by anti-atheists bothers me.

Self-criticism among atheists is somewhat useful. But then others, religious folks, seize on this. And try to use it as a wedge, to divide atheists against each other.

"Divide and conquer" was Caesar's main lesson. And this is the Right Wing's main strategy today in fact; try to get the Liberals arguing with themselves.

Another related strategy by the Right: find a conservative minority political candidate, black or Hispanic. Like say Ted Cruz. To try to draw off part of the Liberal vote.

Right Wingers or anyone, using liberalism against liberalism, does not seem good.

[rug]

125. Ah, so you feel problems within the atheist community should be discussed

only within the atheist community.

You would be right at home inside the College of Cardinals.

As to your last sentence, that is precisely what Harris is doing.

[Brettongarcia]

126. When any given community criticizes itself, before others, that is considered higher criticism.

In fact, that's one of the highest lessons of Christianity. Jesus himself told us to look "for the beam in your own eye," before you criticize others.

In contrast? Criticizing others is all too natural, and all too easy. All too seductive. And caters to a natural but childish destructive egotism: self against all others.

In failing to see that lesson Rug? Once again, as you often do, you seem to be trying to support, defend religion - say your Catholic religion? But you are doing it once again, by violating one of its core principles. Failing to criticize the "beam in your own eye" first.

Life is often ironic. In this case? Your arguments are loaded therefore with contradictions. You defend much of religion. But you do that in concepts that pervert its core principles. While in contrast? Paradoxically, atheism ends up being closer to the true and core concepts of the faith.

Life is full of little ironies.

[rug]

127. Good. I'll continue to post "higher criticism".

[Brettongarcia]

128. That is good only if, for YOU the re-poster and most of your readers, it is also self-criticism.

[rug]

129. That's unabashed rubbish.

[pinto]

97. That's one reason I enjoyed working in Public Health. In general their was more gender equality, imo

As well as sexuality equality. 3 of the 4 supervisors I worked with were female. 2 of the 3 PH Medical Directors during my time were female. I, a gay male, was approved as a program director by a panel of 3 men and 3 women. There was no sense of Public Health being more "appropriate" for women. We were pretty hard nosed, all of us, at times as called for. And we all had our eyes on the prize of overall public health goals.

There were jerks in the mix, as in any organization, yet they got called on inappropriate behavior by their peers. I think that ought to happen more often in other groups.

[cbayer]

100. Good point. I think that for whatever reason there is more balance

in public health agencies. Perhaps a recognition that different ways of seeing and analyzing things is an asset.

Things changed very rapidly in traditional medicine as more women became doctors. In particular the male doctor/female nurse dynamic change tremendously, and definitely for the better.

[edhopper]

108. The same problem does not exist within religion

most religions are the problem. Their laws and tenets are sexist, they propagate a patriarchal society and consider women second class.
As opposed to atheism and atheist org.s Where a few members (even prominent ones)might reflect some misogynistic views, but the organization and it's purpose is gender neutral, and they by and large support a feministic view.
Read the Humanist Manifesto for instance:

We are critical of sexism or sexual chauvinism - male or female. We believe in equal rights for both women and men to fulfill their unique careers and potentialities as they see fit, free of invidious discrimination.

[cbayer]

110. Even more reason to make sure that this doesn't happen to atheist groups.

Some of the women with organized atheism are pretty pissed off. Here is the opportunity to do things differently, and it is disturbing that there is still reactionary sexism that is rising to the surface in response to this.

Bringing up the argument that "it's not as bad as what we see in organized religious groups" is, frankly, lame.

Is that the bar we want to set or should be expect something much better?

Good for the humanists. I wish they would take a firm stand against the sexism in some other secular organizations.

[edhopper]

111. Yes

That is the response atheist groups should have.

[cbayer]

112. It is wonderful to agree with you, edhopper.

[edhopper]

113. I still think

"Atheism has a problem" is a silly title.

[cbayer]

114. Agree with that.

I think titles are often picked by editors and not really reflective of the message of the writer.

[edhopper]

116. Yeah

Seen that a few times.

[RadicalGeek]

84. Have Heard a Lot About This

From Pollit(t), Hartmann, etc.

What I think part of it has to do with is the tremedous egos of many of the leading Atheists! That is not to say that there aren't arrogant folks among the religious, despite pride being a deadly sin.

It may be what draws a lot of people to atheism, the idea that there is nothing above the self. Migh be why Ayn Rand was one, or the notion that the poor, etc deserved pity and respect.

[cbayer]

88. Welcome to the religion group, radicalgeek.

Interesting analysis. I think that people in positions of power, be they religious or not religious, sometimes do become arrogant and feel that what they say should be beyond reproach.

Ayn Rand was a particular kind of atheist and I think the description fits her, but IMO most atheists are not like that.

[RadicalGeek]

106. Thank you

I agree that power can breed arrogance. One need look at how many religious fundys become arrogant. Of course, I see folks like Dawkins as being basically as closed-minded and arrogant as religious fundys.

Just as not all religious are closed-minded, the same goes for atheists, I know this!

[cbayer]

109. I agree with you.

It's not something that is unique to religious believers. Apparently it can also happen with nonbelievers.

In the end, it really has nothing to do with theism or atheism, but about power and the arrogance that power can bring.

[carolinayellowdog]

103. Sadistic bullies tend to rise to dominance in loosely-organized "movements"

and sadistic bullies are more likely to be male than female-- but there are plenty of female sadistic bullies too as evidenced by Rand-- and by DU's "centrists"

[RadicalGeek]

104. Once again

Comes down, IMO, to ego!