From Hitchens to Dawkins: Where are the women of New Atheism?

[cbayer]

Last edited Sun Jul 21, 2013, 02:22 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/21/from_hitchens_to_dawkins_where_are_the_women_of_new_atheism/


Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”
–I Corinthians xiv. 34-5

“New Atheism” is old news. Enter “New, New Atheism”: the next generation, with its more spiritual brand of non-belief, and its ambition to build an atheist church. It is an important moment for the faithless. Will it include women?

Several years ago, there was discussion of a “woman problem” within the Atheist movement. New high priests of non-faith announced themselves—Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Peter Singer, A.C. Grayling, Daniel Dennett, etc.—and they were men. And they were angry. Their best-selling works were important and essential. These authors helped reinvigorate the secular cause; they cast off the fog of political correctness to unapologetically lay siege to piety. But before long, these New Atheists were depicted as an old boys’ club—a clique of (white) men, bound by a particularly unyielding brand of disbelief.

Where were the women?

Why, they were right there: stolidly leading people away from the fold. They were irreverent bloggers and institution founders. And scholars. Around the time that the Dawkins-Hitchens-Harris tripartite published its big wave of Atheist critique, historian Jennifer Michael Hecht published “Doubt” and journalist Susan Jacoby published “Freethinkers“—both critically acclaimed. And yet, these women, and many others, failed to emerge as public figures, household names. “Nobody talked about [Doubt] as a ‘phenomenon,’” Hecht has noted. “They just talked about the book.” What gives?

more at link

[Nay]

1. Madelyn Murray O'Hair was around way before these guys. She was vilified and reviled,

and now, if you read this very incomplete essay, forgotten even by the writer. THAT'S where women go -- straight down the memory hole, because doncha know, wimmin can't come up with hifalutin' philosophy or nuthin'.

I did read a good essay a while back about why there weren't many female atheists at the atheist conventions: many male atheists seem to be libertarians and not equality-minded, and many female attendees were treated as eye candy, with leers, etc., so women decided not to attend after hearing many horror stories.

[cbayer]

2. There have been some significant problems concerning women

within the organized atheism movement.

Some of the battles have been played out extensively on various websites.

IMO, these are somewhat typical of the growing pains of groups that are dominated by men (or white people or straight people, etc.).

I think the author's advice and admonitions at the end of the article are spot on.

[skepticscott]

3. What significant problems have there been

other than those that are typical of men and a male dominated society in general? I know you and ruggie have a innate fascination with flinging poo at the atheist "movement", but when has it ever had the remotest thing to do with whether there are any gods and whether religious beliefs are rank foolishness or not?

And no, your feigned concern for the welfare of the atheist "movement" is not convincing.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

4. Ah, the old "when did you stop beating your wife?" bullshit

It's a perfect example of a loaded question making an unjustified assumption.

It doesn't take much work to find that there are an extraordinary number of women active in the modern atheist movement.

[cbayer]

5. I don't think she makes the assertion that there aren't any women,

but you can't deny that there has been some strife and some significant misogyny from some quarters.

It's not necessarily a bad thing to acknowledge this and acknowledge it early.

I've been one of the only women in significantly male dominated hierarchies before. It's not easy. The women who are doing it should be actively supported, imo.

Her advice at the end to take notice and not become what one is rightly pointing fingers at (patriarchal hierarchies within organizations, including religions) is worth heeding.

I don't agree it's a "When did you stop beating your wife" question. And to say that is to dismiss the myriad of women in the movement that have been bringing this up.

Being dismissed like that may be part of the problem.

[struggle4progress]

6. Susan Jacoby on Secularism and Free Thinking (Bill Moyers Interview)

[rug]

7. Let's not forget Edwina Rogers, from Cheney adviser to Executive Director of the Secular Coalition.

[cbayer]

8. Actually, as much as object to her politically,

she is one of the few women that have made some significant headway within the movement.

I think she's a horrible choice, but therein might lie some of the problem.

If it's the objective of some is to politically integrate atheist activist groups (more R's), then perhaps she is a good choice. But, in doing so, they also appear to embrace anti-woman R politics.

[edhopper]

9. Well, let me look at my latest issue of Free Inquiry

Two of the six main articles are written by women, Three of the five columnist are women. The Managing Editor is a woman.
Not equal representation, but a reasonable accounting.

Maybe the problem is with the media reporting on atheist and not with the atheist as a group.

[cbayer]

10. That's great and, in light of the managing editor being a woman, not that surprising.

I am glad that you support that publication.

That is clearly not where the problem lies. By blaming the media for the way they are covering this, you may appear to be dismissing the opinions of the women within the groups that are actively complaining and reporting it.

And that might be indicative of part of the problem right there.

[edhopper]

11. I was responding this part;

"Why, they were right there: stolidly leading people away from the fold. They were irreverent bloggers and institution founders. And scholars. Around the time that the Dawkins-Hitchens-Harris tripartite published its big wave of Atheist critique, historian Jennifer Michael Hecht published “Doubt” and journalist Susan Jacoby published “Freethinkers“—both critically acclaimed. And yet, these women, and many others, failed to emerge as public figures, household names. “Nobody talked about as a ‘phenomenon,’” Hecht has noted. “They just talked about the book.” What gives? "

Clearly the media is much to blame.

I wasn't referencing the problems within the organization. Those problems are very serious, but I think overblown in terms of how wide spread they are.

[cbayer]

12. OK, that makes sense.

I do think the media has it's bias as well, which is even more reason that the organizations should be actively promoting their female leaders and scholars.

I am very glad that you recognize that there is a problem. This is such a great opportunity to form and promote something that gives voice to a wide variety of people. Most atheists are democrats and tend to be progressive/liberal organizations.

There is an opportunity here - an opportunity I hope we grab.

[trotsky]

13. Do you even pay attention to what you post, cbayer?

You consistently blame the media for not covering liberal Christian groups and news, and yet here you turn around and mock someone for suggesting the same thing when it comes to women and secularism?

Are you freaking kidding me?

No wonder you struggle to be taken seriously. Such blatant and disgusting double standards! Get your own house in order before you start being so insulting toward others.

[MellowDem]

14. I don't think a lack of women has anything to do with atheism itself...

One of my guesses from looking at atheist demographics in the US, which show atheists to more likely be white and male (similar to out homosexuals), is that people with more societal privilege have the luxury of being an atheist compared to other groups that still rely on religious organizations more due to not being as privileged in other ways. It's easier for a upper middle class male to ditch a community of believers and still be fine than it is a single minority mom in a lot of circumstances, especially where that community is one of the vital resources she needs in day to day life. In other words, intellectual honesty has its price, and it's not as high a price if you're more privileged in other ways.

The above relates more to the gender gap in demographics than in the leadership positions. I find those gaps are more likely due to the same reasons society as a whole has gender gaps in leadership roles. There is no belief inherent in atheism that women are to be treated differently in other words, or as second class.

There are, on the other hand, numerous religions that treat women very explicitly as second class citizens, and a lot of those religions' general membership is made up of more women than men. It's like the chickens electing Col. Sanders, but we see that all the time with 95 percent oF Republican voters. What's sad is their membership in an organization that treats them like second class citizens usually comes through childhood indoctrination, and the pressure to stay in that organization comes from social and financial necessities in many parts of the world, including parts of the US, rather than the belief system itself, which few know about or even have the luxury to are about.

[cbayer]

15. I think you are absolutely right about those

with privilege having a greater opportunity to express or be open about themselves. They are much less reliant on other systems and take much less of a risk. I had never thought of that. Really well put.

Women who have joined atheist organizations face all the same barriers that any woman does in an organization dominated by men. Same goes for the challenges that face non-whites or GLBT people.

I agree also that there is absolutely nothing that is inherent in atheism that would make it more sexist. But there is an opportunity here to be less sexist - to set a great example for religious groups who continue to have high levels of patriarchy or sexism.

One thing I would suggest is this - if secular organizations and the government(s) would provide more for the neediest among us, there would be less demand for and dependence on religious organizations.

That is something I think, that religious and non-religious people can agree on and work together on achieving.

It strikes me that there is a great deal to be learned from some religious organizations about taking care of those that need the most.

Why reinvent the wheel? I can't think of any reason why they would not gladly share the experience and expertise they possess.

Great post, by the way.

[MellowDem]

16. Thanks, cbayer

I definitely feel that the fact many people rely on private charity (religious or not) is a sign of our failure as a society.

When I was religious, it was one of the things that made me cringe while helping others through church, that the work done seemed conditional to a degree, that this was being done on god's behalf, not just because it was the right thing to do to have a healthy, equitable, and happy society.

I think religious communities, like any local community organization, will always be more "local" than any government program could ever be, more entwined with the local culture and aware of the needs of the community. I think secular organizations can and do fit that same need in many places, but they just are not as widespread. I just think they can do it without a lot of baggage too, or contradictory or harmful ideas from their belief system (like discouraging contraceptives). I know some progressive religions are essentially secular in their outreach, and those I have no problem with.

[cbayer]

17. I've had the fortunate opportunity to have worked within religious organizations

that did not make their help conditional in any way. But I agree, that it sometimes is conditional.

I also agree that the bulk of this kind of work takes place on a local, and most unnoticed basis. When delivering food to AIDS patients in New Orleans, I can say with some confidence that the vast majority of those we served had no idea that the organization that made it happen was religious in any way.

It just wasn't part of the mission to let anyone know, though it was part of the mission to do it.

The issue may be one of community. Religious organizations often provide the structure, funding, people and other support for putting these programs into action. I would like nothing more than to see that increasingly happen outside the religious community as well.

Alliances may be very powerful in making this happen.

We have to counter those that come with baggage and conditions.