Why the New Atheism is a boys' club?

[Lost-in-FL]

Last edited Fri Dec 16, 2011, 07:50 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/26/new-atheism-boys-club?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487


Is it that female intellectuals are less rational and contrarian than male secularists? Or just that society prefers lionising men?


...So, is new-style atheism the sausage party that media coverage would suggest? Without getting into an impossible intellectual debate – the kind dealing with pinpointing exactly who was the first to come up with or popularise a particular idea – suffice it to say no, not hardly. Consider: in 2003, the intellectual historian and poet Jennifer Michael Hecht published Doubt: A History: The Great Doubters and Their Legacy of Innovation from Socrates and Jesus to Thomas Jefferson and Emily Dickinson. The book traces famous non-believers throughout history, and advocates atheism on the grounds that these thinkers' skepticism towards religious institutions fostered innovation in philosophy, literature and science. It garnered rave reviews from the Los Angeles Times, which called it "marvelous", and Skeptic magazine, which described it as a "stunning chronicle of unbelievers". In 2004, journalist Susan Jacoby published the extensively praised work Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism, a book that drew on the history of United States – in particular, the significant role secular thinkers have played in reform movements – to make the case that staunchly non-religious thought should be the main driver of public policy.

Yet, though Hecht's and Jacoby's books both came out shortly before Wired bestowed its "New Atheist" designation on the likes of Dawkins and Harris (whose The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason was published the same year as Jacoby's Freethinkers), neither woman is invoked in the mainstream media's anointing of atheist thought leaders. Is it that "rationality" – the bedrock of New Atheist doctrine – is historically gendered male, while women are considered more emotional? Is it that their books are too conciliatory toward religion, too well-balanced, too, you know, womanly?

Nope. Both women are accomplished, strong-voiced scholars, and are no more afraid than their male colleagues to call out religion's injustices in a public forum – that is to say, not afraid at all. And as for those whose knee-jerk response to the abundance of critical acclaim accorded male writers over female ones is the classic "Maybe their books just weren't as good/original/ambitious": nope again. Indeed, Hitchens recognised Hecht's influence on the bestselling God Is Not Great…

...In interviews, atheist leaders of all genders floated the theory that women might be less comfortable with the staunchly anti-establishment subtext of identifying as atheist, because they are more likely than men to be brought up to think that social standing, as well as serving their families, is of utmost importance. It's embedded in so many female upbringings to collaborate with peers, to think of others before they think of themselves, to be openminded and listen to everyone fairly. Male upbringings, say these atheist leaders – even in our contemporary, supposedly post-feminist time – allow more leeway to indulge one's individualism, be it in solo tinkering with cars, guitars and chemistry sets, or simply in the pursuit of brooding teen rebellion.
______________________________________________________________________

What say you? It is unfortunate that such crap article comes from a woman, IMHO.

I think this is an attempt at "making up" a story. As a woman, I have not being treated differently for being a woman-atheist myself but just for being woman. I do not see that which she is talking about, that atheism is practically a "boys club", but quite the contrary. I have known more female atheists and even the leadership of my school's atheist/secular organization is all women. If there is ever a "misrepresentation" of women in atheists circles it is due to cultural and not necessarily as a result of atheism. Another thing (and please excuse my ignorance if I am wrong), aren't feminists secularists? Many of the people I know in Women Studies department are either pagan, agnostic or atheists and they express sentiments blaming organized religion for facilitating the condition of women in general.

I also don't buy the fact that Dennett, Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens's books were given "priority" because they were written by men. IMO, they are well known atheist authors (except Harris). Dawkins even smacks religion in his 30 year old book "The Selfish Gene" and have produced many anti-theist videos/documentaries prior to The God Delusion. Also, their books seem to have incendiary titles which create much more interest or rage. What y'all think?