5 reasons there aren’t more women in atheism

[cbayer]

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/29/five_reasons_there_arent_more_women_in_atheism/

MONDAY, JUL 29, 2013 08:22 AM PDT

The social movement is no less subject to the norms of our overtly patriarchal society
BY SORAYA CHEMALY


Christopher Hitchens, Sikivu Hutchinson, Richard Dawkins (Credit: Reuters/Shannon Stapleton/Facebook/Chris Keane)

In a Salon piece last week called, “Where are the women of new atheism?”, Katie Englehardt described what looks like diminishing participation of women in atheist life. She also encouraged atheist women to more openly embrace their beliefs.

But atheist women are very active. These women aren’t visible — and there aren’t more like them — for at least five reasons.

First, women are more devout because they have to be. Women’s religiosity is directly related to economic security. The lack of a social safety net means that women, who are still responsible for the bulk of elder and child care, often need to rely on religious organizations to support themselves and their families. The Catholic Church alone has more than 2,500 local organizations that provide critical safety net services for more than 10 million people annually. The network of friends that develop around churches, mosques and temples likewise become essential partners in caring for families. Those communities are necessarily deeply enmeshed in the daily cadence of life. There are, as Sikivu Hutchinson explains in her book on this subject, Moral Combat, necessary connections between gender, religiosity and social justice. “The domino effect of de facto segregation, job discrimination, unemployment, foreclosure, mass incarceration, and educational apartheid has bolstered the influence of religious institutions in many black and Latino neighborhoods where storefront churches line every block,” she explained recently.

Second, sexism is real and has an effect on women’s participation and leadership within the atheist community. Rape jokes and sexual harassment, as penalties and tools to silence women, exist in atheist and secular groups as well as religious ones. Many people hold the tacit belief that atheism equals rationalism and rationalism is gender-neutral, and therefore sexism can’t exist among atheists. But critical thinkers do irrational things all the time — and unless they actively try to resist existing prejudices, they can easily fall into them. The discrimination based on class, race, gender and sexuality that we see in the broader culture exists in atheist and secular communities too, and requires the same dismantling.


more at link

[trotsky]

1. Say what?

"Many people hold the tacit belief that atheism equals rationalism and rationalism is gender-neutral, and therefore sexism can’t exist among atheists."

Really? How many? Any cites? *sniff* Smells like straw to me.

I know this is one of your favorite topics to post about, cbayer, but the fact of the matter is that while our society is still patriarchal, and that all of our groups and institutions suffer from it and have to work against it, the freethought/atheist/humanist groups are light years ahead of most religions, and certainly all the major ones. Continuing to criticize and focus on the groups that are actually doing something about it is divisive and counter-productive, IMHO. Aren't you supposed to be all about common goals?

[LostOne4Ever]

35. Light years

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]trotsky[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"] but the fact of the matter is that while our society is still patriarchal, and that all of our groups and institutions suffer from it and have to work against it, the freethought/atheist/humanist groups are light years ahead of most religions, and certainly all the major ones.

Totally agree.

Honestly, im surprised that there are not more female non-believers for this reason alone. I would have thought that the nonstop drumbeat against women's reproductive rights, contraception, and well everything from right wing theocrats would have driven women away from religion in droves.

[Warpy]

51. We are out there and I know as many woman atheists online

as I do men. However, unless we're among friends, we women have to be quite a bit more circumspect. Living in the "I'm not religious" closet is necessary unless we want to read male adolescent fantasies about our rape, torture, dismemberment and death. It's dull and repetitive and we'd just rather not bother, thanks.

Many men, even many atheist men, prefer us to be religious because that keeps us in the "tame and obedient" category they think will make their own lives go more smoothly.

I've seen too many friends and coworkers get divorced and leave church (all church) at the same time to think much female religiosity is anything more than trying to keep peace at home.

[LeftishBrit]

2. In the UK, there are plenty of female atheists

Fewer than males, but a lot. In a 2004 survey, 49% of women and 39% of men claimed to believe in God. This still means that half of women either didn't or weren't sure, as compared with 40% of males.

In the UK a vague agnosticism is probably commoner than either strong atheism or strong religious faith; and the results of surveys can vary widely according to the exact questions asked.

[cbayer]

3. I agree that how and what you ask can dramatically alter the results

of many surveys on this topic. Not claiming a belief in god does not necessarily make one an atheist. I like the term "vague agnosticism" that you use. I have also used the term apatheism - those that don't know whether there is a god or not and don't really care.

Part of this really addresses the leadership issues within organized atheism and not atheism itself. Is that an issue in the UK?

[cprise]

24. Humanism also has a much larger mindshare

...among nonbelievers in western Europe. This mode of non-believing imparts a sense of morality that a focus on atheism does not. I think this is a lot more attractive to women and girls than the mindset one finds barreling down the US thoroughfares in SUVs sporting Darwin-fish insignia.

[cbayer]

26. I don't think I have ever heard the term "mindshare" and had to look it up.

Anyway, I do think you have a point in saying that humanism may be more attractive to women than atheism, particularly in how the groups are evolving in the US. But I bet a lot of people really couldn't tell you the difference, nor would they really care.

[cprise]

27. I think you would be wrong about that difference

Humanism spans many different cultures and eras, and is often even theistic. The world view and focus on morality doesn't hinge on disbelief. Europeans tend to be better acquainted with humanism because of a more robust appreciation for history and egalitarian values.

[cbayer]

31. It's an relatively unfamiliar concept in the US in my experience.

And I have had several people give me very different explanations of what it is.

I've also seen people that describe themselves as humanists behave in markedly different ways towards other people.

I do agree that Europeans generally have a much better education regarding history... well, at least European history.

But as the US was ostensibly founded on the concept of egalitarianism, I would disagree that those in the US are less informed on this.

In fact, I would argue that those countries with class systems, including monarchies, may be less familiar with it.

[okasha]

4. Counting down to the inevitable

"Burn the heretic!" post that calls the author a "hack" and the argument a "straw man."

[cbayer]

6. I think some of the reaction we get on DU makes some of the

author's points for her.

I would really like to see organized atheist organizations be trail blazers in addressing patriarchy, sexism and misogyny. They seem in the perfect position to be show real leadership in these areas.

Repeatedly saying that the problem doesn't exist just exacerbates the whole conflict.

[okasha]

10. It certainly does.

River in Eygypt, and all that.

[trotsky]

23. Who has said the problem doesn't exist, cbayer?

You, like the author of the piece, are doing a fantastic job taking down a straw man. Hope it makes you feel better.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. "in atheism" appears to actually mean "be part of the atheist/skeptic convention circuit".

And indeed there is a sexism problem, just like the rest of society, and there are people trying to do something about it, just like the rest of society. Atheists are just people who don't believe in fictional deities. They aren't saints.

[cbayer]

7. I think she is also addressing leadership issues within organized atheism.

And I agree, there really is no reason to think that the problems encountered by those organizations would be much different than those in other organizations.

However, I think there is a great opportunity here to show leadership in addressing those problems. I would really like to see that happen.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. Why would the atheist/skeptics movement be burdened with showing leadership in this area?

I am not against the idea, I just don't understand the fascination here from the theists with "sexism among atheists". Seems sort of peculiar coming from adherents to a patriarchal religion with a history of brutal misogyny going back thousands of years. It is almost like you all are grasping at any glimmer of hope that atheist institutions are just as fucked up as theist institutions. But perhaps I'm just reading too much into it.

[okasha]

9. Because, if your argument includes opposition to

a patriarchal religion with a history of brutal misogyny going back thousands of years

you're both ethically and logically obliged to offer something better than the status quo misogyny.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. "my argument" doesn't. "My argument" is limited to "I don't believe in fictional deities".

But that is just me. Other atheists may have other arguments. Mostly atheists just don't believe in gods.

[okasha]

16. I do believe that was your post

I quoted from. So you're okay with "brutal misogyny" and don't feel obliged to do any better?

[cbayer]

11. Burdened by this? Really?

Well, let me give you just one of many reasons.

One of the legitimate charges made by some atheist organizations is that religious organizations promote patriarchal ideas that are harmful to girls and women. They seem to have a lot to gain and nothing to lose by challenging that and setting an example of how it can be done differently.

I'm not a theist, but I am a feminist. I support much of what is happening within organized atheism, but I think sweeping this issue under the rug or denying it is a big mistake.

So I'm not sure to whom you are directing your comments. Surely not me?

Oh, I see, you've made incorrect assumptions based on some erroneous beliefs based on no data.

Not very reasonable or rational, imo.

I want atheist organizations to succeed. I see them as powerful allies in shared liberal/progressive causes. The majority of atheists are democrats and tend to be progressive.

And I think blowing off the sexism is a big mistake.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. So you are claiming to be an atheist?

[cbayer]

14. Claiming? You say that like it's an accusation of some sort.

I don't claim to be anything except possibly an apatheist - someone who doesn't know if there is a god or not, doesn't have an opinion on it and really doesn't care.

Is that ok with you?

[Warren Stupidity]

15. its fine with me. I assumed you were religious. I was surprised to see you imply you weren't.

[cbayer]

17. I defend religion and religionists. I guess I am a religionist in the

same way that a man can be a feminist.

Because I do that, many assume that I am religious when I am not. It has been fascinating to see how that often colors their interactions with me and preconceived ideas about me.

[Fumesucker]

18. Defend religion and religionists while attacking atheism and atheists

I don't understand your motivations, why defend the powerful and attack those without power in our society?

[cbayer]

19. Fumesucker, where do I attack atheism and atheists?

Is that an assumption on your part? A misreading of what I do? Or a belief based on no evidence?

[Fumesucker]

21. It's based on you taking a small, and powerless community and focusing on every minor misdeed

A community that to many of those of us who might be thought to belong to it doesn't even exist.

Go shine your spotlight on the dark side of organized religion for a while, God knows it's dark enough and big enough to need ten million spotlights, there's a church on every other street corner around here while I still have yet to meet another atheist.

[cbayer]

22. But I don't do that.

While I have posted some stories about the issues around women, I also post stories that are highly supportive of atheist groups and activities.

I would like you to show me how I focus on "every minor misdeed". Is it possible that you have bought into a meme about me that is not true?

And I do also post stories about the dark side of organized religion and do it frequently.

IMHO, you have made some incorrect assumptions about me, possibly based on misinformation.

I know that the issue of sexism within organized atheism is a sore spot for many, but I very much want to see these organizations set an example that counters the patriarchy that is embedded in too many religious organizations. I think it should be taken seriously and addressed quickly. There is an opportunity here to do it right.

[cprise]

28. That last bit about allies is an interesting opinion

And it was probably true 40 years ago.

But today, if you "get out more" beyond progressive publications and venues, I think you'll find a very large force in atheism is the libertarian / Social Darwinist mindset. Even worse, that mindset is evolving into a kind of worship of technology and power called transhumanism (the belief that humans aren't "good enough" without genetic or prosthetic modification). Much of contemporary America is enthralled with the concept of the superhero and with technology as the solution to social problems. The number of people who have internalized these values at the gut level may even exceed the demographic to which you refer.

IMHO, the question of belief in a grand Creator is much less important than having a world view that is naturalistic and includes a human-centered morality that avoids social maladies like misanthropy, racism and sexism (or rather affirms humanity and the importance of what we have in common across ethnic and gender lines).

[cbayer]

29. Still, most recent surveys, as well as past surveys, show that the bulk of atheists

are liberal/progressives and tend to vote democratic.

The Ayn Rand sect exists, but they aren't really going to want to get involved in social issues anyway, are they?

I agree with your last paragraph. It's not how you believe or even what you believe, it's how your see the world and behave.

[cprise]

30. I see the Randians as engaged with social issues, unfortunately. n/t

[cbayer]

32. I guess insofar as they fight for less governmental intervention and support for the

marginalized, you are correct.

[okasha]

33. They already are,

unfortunately. Cato Institute, anyone?

[AlbertCat]

39. grasping at any glimmer of hope that atheist institutions are just as fucked up as theist institutio

Bingo!!!!

Seeing as atheists grow up in religious cultures, and are bombarded with religious notions from the day of their birth to the day they die, it seems disingenuous to think that, tho' they don't believe in the supernatural, they wouldn't act somewhat like anyone else steeped in the same culture. That being said.... atheists do a LOT better than any religion on the misogynistic level.

[Goblinmonger]

20. Here's where I don't understand this from you.

First off, I'll get it out there: Can the atheist community do more to work on gender equity within the group? Absolutely. I'm not saying things are perfect. There are problems.

That said.

You continually talk about how atheists should stop fighting against religions that are bad and work with those that are good. That's fair, right?

Well, come on. As said above, the atheist movement is light years ahead of almost every major religion in regard to gender equity. Why do you continue to fight this fight? PLUS, the atheist community is doing a pretty damn good job of addressing the problems that exist. Just let this be. If you are going to fight for gender equity within groups that deal with matters of belief/disbelief, your time and energy are much better spend aiming that at the RCC. Or one of the other major religions.

[trotsky]

25. Well put. I really hope you get a response.

If anyone is interested, Jen McCreight put together "A large list of awesome female atheists" a while back:

http://www.blaghag.com/2010/01/large-list-of-awesome-female-atheists.html

It's funny too how the people attacking atheism this way always seem to forget about the founder of modern organized atheism in the United States - a woman named Madalyn Murray O'Hair.

[dimbear]

34. Have to agree. Just as we have said here so often, they don't get the media coverage they deserve.

Also, after a long life, I suspect men and women are somewhat different. Equal, but different.

[Jokerman]

36. This is just anti-atheist propaganda.

"necessary connections between gender, religiosity and social justice. “The domino effect of de facto segregation, job discrimination, unemployment, foreclosure, mass incarceration, and educational apartheid has bolstered the influence of religious institutions in many black and Latino neighborhoods"

If that is even close to true then it is only because of the religion soaked patriarchal society is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[cbayer]

37. I would suggest that dismissing the writings of a respected female atheist and feminist

as "just anti-atheist propaganda" may be a part of the problem.

[Jokerman]

38. I dismissed the writing based on the writing, details of the author aren't relevant to my comments.

Giving an argument more or less credibility based on the author's gender or suggesting that I had done so just because I'm a man are examples of sexist behavior.

My criticism is not.

[cbayer]

40. I think you missed my point.

Of course your criticism is valid, even if you provide very little actual critique.

But I think the dismissive way in which you did it may be part of the problem. What about this piece is anti-atheism propaganda, if you don't mind? And why would someone working from inside the movement want to push such propaganda?

[okasha]

41. it's the obligatory "Burn the heretic!"

post. It's just not by the usual poster.

[cbayer]

42. Witches, I tell ya. They're all witches.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. There is nothing about atheism that prevents a woman from taking a leadership

position in atheist cultural or philosophical circles.

Let me know when a woman can become the pope, and maybe the contrast will be valid.

[cbayer]

44. No, but there may be something about the culture within organized atheism

that does.

The article gives lots of reasons why that may be the case. Do you dismiss them all?

And do you really want to compare organized atheism to the RCC? Is that the standard you want to set? As long as the organizations are better than that, then there isn't a problem?

Really?

[trotsky]

45. Have you, or anyone else, demonstrated that the "culture within organized atheism"

is any more sexist than the western culture in which it is mostly based?

(For the record, our culture IS sexist, and there is sexism within atheist groups. I am not denying any of that - despite your repeated attempts to claim that somehow people are doing just that.)

I will take your silence as an indication that no, you have no evidence.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. Merely one example.

I could cite some religions that are much more equal between genders, with no gender-prohibited roles. I can even think of some matriarchal faith-based cultures. (Ignoring matrilineal cultures, because they can still be patriarchal)


I'm still waiting for some actual data that upholds anything from the OP. Something that SHOWS some sort of institutionalized patriarchy in 'atheism'. Just because some men (particularly white men) have become the media face of atheism, doesn't mean those men OR atheists at large, did anything to arrange it. Society may simply be selecting who it listens to via it's own patriarchal filters.

I don't even accept this claim:
"Atheism and secularism are part of a movement, with leaders, on Earth."

That's BS from my perspective. There are some prominent atheists in the culture war/political war between secularism and faith, particularly where faith intersects with government. That doesn't make them 'leaders'. They probably LOOK like leaders to people of faith, who are used to organization and hierarchy in their faith, but atheists don't model that. We don't have 'leaders'. I don't look to Dawkins, the prior works of Hitchens, or Dennett, or any of them for leadership. There are certainly cultural/media elements that WANT to assume/elevate them to 'leadership' positions as the face of atheism, but that doesn't make them so.

I don't take marching orders from Dawkins. I respect him. I enjoy his work. I enjoy some of his hand to hand rhetorical combat with prominent members of various religious faith. But that doesn't make him my leader. I'm perfectly happy to enter into debate with those same parties, and stand on my own. But the media doesn't select for me. No one of any prominence would debate me. I have no books. No following. I'm a nobody. Craig wouldn't debate me. D'Souza wouldn't debate me. I'm just some schlub from the crowd. Media/culture (to a degree, that of outsiders, not necessarily atheists) have selected for people like Dawkins as a figurehead. That doesn't make him my 'leader'. I didn't elect him. I don't subscribe to him in any official capacity.

That someone like Susan Blackmore isn't as successful in broad culture/society, as say Dawkins, isn't necessarily a reflection on Atheists, but rather on that culture/society itself. (Which in the US, is by far and away, of 'faith' of one stripe or another)

Your, and the author cited' s mistake is, assuming 'Atheism' is a 'organized thing' at all. You (and she) apparently mistake successful activists as leaders. I suppose if that's all you know, that's easy to do, but as an Atheist myself, the implication is invalid. I am as quick to look at Blackmore or Dr. Clancy, or any number of women with information I might find useful to convey.

Take off your filters.

[cbayer]

47. There have been many complaints from women about this.

The fact that data hasn't been collected may also be a reflection of the problem. Is anyone taking their complaints seriously enough to really survey female members and non-members in order to ascertain whether there is a problem, the nature of the problem and it's extent? I would suggest it is incumbent on the leadership, who have access to resources, to take a look at this.

I have been in the minority group in male dominated organizations and know how difficult it can be to be heard or move up the ranks. Change starts when people within the group start making noise, and that's what is happening here.

There is an opportunity for these organizations to take some leadership and show that patriarchy is a problem that can and will be addressed. Denying that there is a problem or insisting that those complaining come up with some hard evidence is a mistake, imo.

And to deny that there is no such thing as organized atheism at this point is equally foolish. Just look at the number of organizations and conferences. That's a good thing in my mind. And of course they are going to encounter the same issues that other organizations have faced, particularly since surveys have shown that their target audience is currently dominated by white, straight, educated, employed males.

You may also need to take off your filters.

[AtheistCrusader]

48. Invalid.

'We' as atheists do not select our prominent culture/social 'figureheads'. Society at large does. Society at large isn't atheist. Who will 'bubble to the top' as a prominent atheist in the society/culture's perception isn't in my control, as an atheist. Not even as an equal share among all atheists.

Nice dodge on the data. Complaints are fraught with confirmation bias. That a female atheist that wants to join battle against theism isn't successful getting on letterman, or the Today show, or called out or accepted for debate at prominent universities, is not specifically within the control of the subset of society that identifies as 'atheist'.

"And to deny that there is no such thing as organized atheism at this point is equally foolish."

Prove it.

I view the 'organizations' and conferences as means to select for 'warriors' that the other side will engage in debate. Again, there's that selective pressure from outside; whom 'they' will debate at all. The rest is just dissemination of information.

The rest of your argument is predicated on the strawman that atheists somehow must or should be less patriarchal than theists. A position I reject. A lack of faith has some implications, but only implications, no rules/order/dogma.

[cbayer]

49. It's not just about the prominent culture/social figureheads.

It's about leadership and behavior within organizations. And the members certainly do have some control over that, including who their spokespeople are when dealing with the media.

Ignore and dismiss them at your own peril.

Prove it? Just spend some time around here reading about the numerous organizations that have been formed and are active. Everything from summer camp organizations for children to small groups at the high school level to national organizations. Wikipedia alone lists over 40 "secularist" organizations, most of which clearly identify as atheist organizations. Or is their some other proof that you are looking for?

BTW, most atheists don't want to join a battle against theism. Those would be the anti-theists.

Most atheists don't want anything except to live in a world where they are accepted and not discriminated against. Then there are those that work for enforcement of 1st amendment issues. Then there are those that work with theists to form political organizations an social movements to challenge the religious right.

I do think atheist organizations should be less patriarchal than religious organizations. One of the most common complaints I see here is that religious organizations are often based on a patriarchal structure that leads to sexism and misogyny. I think it should be a part of the foundation of atheist organizations to commit themselves to not repeating what they see as the fundamental problem with many religions.

If not, they will end up just like them.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. Just like them?

So, being 'agnostic' toward gender roles/prominence in a 'organization' that is issue-specific, having nothing to do with a that gender role issue MUST then lead to a patriarchal hierarchy? Uh huh. It's a nice assertion, I guess, but has nothing at all to support it.


"Prove it? Just spend some time around here reading about the numerous organizations that have been formed and are active. Everything from summer camp organizations for children to small groups at the high school level to national organizations. Wikipedia alone lists over 40 "secularist" organizations, most of which clearly identify as atheist organizations. Or is their some other proof that you are looking for?"

Excellent, that has fuckall to do with Atheism(TM) having an 'Organizational hierarchy' such as that seen with the RCC, but at least you have specified some things that could be evaluated to see whether or not atheists who glom together to do something do conform to patriarchal gender roles, or not. So, among those 40 organizations, can you give some bad examples? Data? Anything?

"Most atheists don't want anything except to live in a world where they are accepted and not discriminated against."

Correct. That is why I said we have no 'organization' at all. There are atheist organizations, camps, advocacy groups and what not, but they are not representative of Atheism(TM), just small groups of atheists here and there. Do you not see the difference?

"One of the most common complaints I see here is that religious organizations are often based on a patriarchal structure that leads to sexism and misogyny. I think it should be a part of the foundation of atheist organizations to commit themselves to not repeating what they see as the fundamental problem with many religions."

Again, invalid. There is no logical link between a dogma that STATES CLEARLY that 'Women cannot do (X)', that establishes hard rules limiting female participation and influence, and an organization-less, dogma-less unaffiliated collection of atheists that may or may not be bigots or sexist, or what have you.

Atheism is ENTIRELY SILENT on the subject of gender roles. I can think of few, if any, examples of religions that are.

[cbayer]

54. Whoa there. No need to get too worked up here.

We are just having a conversation and don't see things the same way.

There has been quite a bit written over the past one or two years by women in atheist organizations about this. I am not here to either defend or challenge them, but I feel their pain.

And much of the response I see is what I have also experienced - denial, dismissal, demands for proof and even outright bullying.

While I've got you here, I am intrigued by your screen name and curious as to what you are crusading for. If you are willing, I'd love to know where you are coming from.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. Why am I worked up?

I am not angry or upset.

My screen name is a nickname that I was given by a friend, after we had a 2 hour long spirited debate about the role of religion in Government, Lemon vs. Kurtzman, etc. He viewed me as a crusader, I do not think that is true, but the name amused me. It's a bit of a double negative in the classic sense of 'crusade'. I think you might be the first person on this site to ever ask me about it, incidentally.

A demand for proof is not unexpected among rational/logical focused people. The vast majority of atheists I know are led to atheism precisely by a worldview of 'you made a claim, proceed to support it'. Though, that wasn't actually the bar I asked for. I asked for evidence (some examples, some data), not proof.

Denial can be part and parcel of parsimony; again, when someone makes a claim that is unsupported or only partially supported. I think you have found a couple examples of individuals who feel this way about this subject, but that is scant evidence. Especially when I read the article and how it defines leadership/prominence, which is largely the perception of the country at large, not specific to atheists. As you yourself mentioned, most atheists don't care about/'crusade about' or otherwise seek 'leadership' or organization.

Correcting broad social ills like patriarchy is quite out of bounds of the question of whether or not there is a god. In fact, the specific question of whether or not there is a god, returned in the positive, is also quite out of bounds of the question of how society treats women or whether there should be a patriarchy. There could exist a supernatural god, but all this 'religion' baggage we invented out of thin air imposed patriarchal nonsense purely as a matter of convenience to the people erecting the various 'faiths'.

To get positive social change on such ills you have to go BEYOND the question of whether or not there is a god. It's possible someone could come out of the other end of that question with a view that there is no god, and be a perfectly frightening bloody murdering bastard. OR, that person could come up with a much better worldview cemented on the bedrock of self-ownership, non-aggression, etc. It takes philosophical leaps beyond 'there is no god' to look at someone of the opposite gender as an equal, and our society is still taking baby steps on that journey, and it's not just the 15% or so of atheists that are doing it.

To the best of my knowledge, atheists tend to have a propensity for working on that journey because they ALSO happen to be more likely than not, liberal, progressive etc. But there are other theistic groups that do as well. For instance (I think this example is correct), Unitarian universalists.

Atheists don't have a lock on that journey by any means. I do tend to assume we are more likely to have begun it, than some other groups, and I do expect more from people who claim to uphold reason/logic/science as virtues. And I do nibble away at these problems whenever they are presented.

But as far as atheism en total, I don't think there is an organization per se, to expect such progress or communication OF. We just are. We have some rock stars. Or super villains, depending on your point of view. But that's all.

I view sexism like racism and other forms of classism. A moral failing to be challenged directly and head on whenever I encounter it. (And there's that 'crusader' bit of me again...)

[cbayer]

56. It's a great name. I like it.

It's an interesting mixture of two words that aren't often seen together and I think it suits what I know of you so far.

I am, by the way, a rational/logical/focused person but I also know that not everything lends itself to proof all that easily. The complaints and lamentations come from a relatively small group within a relatively small group. Since I have not membership in the group, I have no vested interest. Except that I would like organized atheist groups to succeed and to be trailblazers in some ways.

I would also like to see them address issues that have so long plagued religious institutions. It seems like a natural fit to me and a place where these organizations could show leadership in how to do things right. I have been disappointed at much of the response.

I may have a particular sore spot when it comes to the issues common to women who try to ascend within male dominated systems. It may be personal.

The argument you make for how and why some people choose to embrace atheism or identify as atheists can also be applied in some way to religious people. There is also no single organizations representing religious people, let alone all christians or muslims or jews, etc., etc. They also have villains and heroes.

Like you, I would guess, I will support those organizations that are doing the things I want to see get done and push back against those that aren't. And I will also criticize the ones who I think should do better.

We all have our points of privilege. It is often startling to see how dome on DU will so strenuously object to one kind of "ism", then turn around and exhibit a serious case of another kind of "ism", if you know what I mean. We all do it to some extent.

Anyway, it's been nice to talk to you and I hope we do again.

[AtheistCrusader]

57. Not just villians and heroes.

That's the thing. There is no sect of Atheists, that are JUST atheists, that have any rules about women talking about atheism.

"There is also no single organizations representing religious people, let alone all christians or muslims or jews, etc., etc. They also have villains and heroes."

To use the Roman Catholic Church as a negative example again, they do not allow the ordination of women. No priests. So far as to threaten excommunication for anyone who tries, and the Pope called it a 'grave delict'. (delict meaning breach of law)

Does what might happen, per the story in the OP, with individuals or small groups of 'activist' atheists scale to one of the largest churches on the planet, with over one billion adherents. That's institutionalized patriarchy. A leap beyond just a few individuals that might be atheists that might also be bigots or sexist or etc.

I object because there is a level of institutionalization in that group that simply isn't found in the ~1 billion nonreligious people, because categorizing women as a secondary class simply isn't institutionalized in atheism. Where you find it in secular societies, it isn't a commandment of atheism, it's just some cultural artifact from some other source. (Possibly a religious source, lost in time, and no longer practiced directly)

Other than that, I agree, I too have been disappointed at times, even directly by Dawkins, in response to some issues around sexism. But when I take such individuals to task, there is a wonderful thing; they have to support their sexism on their own grounds. They can't point to an old book with commandments from a mysterious supernatural being as their source for said mistreatment. They have to own it, personally. A much easier task because the issue can be tackled directly, I don't have to drive a truck through the bible first, cast doubt on the commandment, the translation, or the god behind it, before coming to grips with the issue of the sexism itself.

(I too, am enjoying our conversation.)

[cbayer]

58. There may not be sects but there are definitely sorts.

The recently released study on the 6 types of atheists was really interesting and sparked a lot of conversations.
Although I don't think the study was particularly well done and certainly not comprehensive, it did point out what I think are some valid lines of differentiation.

The RCC is an organization that represents a lot of people, I agree. And I wholeheartedly disagree with almost everything they do. There are those within the organization trying to change it, but the hurdles are high.

There are also organizational hierarchies within the Protestant sects, but no one overriding one. Some are quite liberal/progressive, others not so much. People tend to join the ones that are most like them and less are joining any one in particular these days. None of those sects come close to the size of the RCC. One cannot compare those or the organized atheist groups fairly to the RCC.

While many protestant sects also had institutionalized patriarchy, many have addressed that issue and made major strides forward.

Every person gets to their belief or lack of beliefs on their own path. My position is that it's not a contest as to whose path is better or goes to a better place. If you are a good person and follow some basic moral principles and don't infringe on the rights of anyone else, I don't dare it you got it through religion or not.

As for Dawkins, he doesn't need the bible. He's got his own best selling books to point to, lol!

[dimbear]

52. There were a few years when Madalyn Murray O'Hair might have been considered

the world's most prominent atheist. Now name a time in recent years when the world's most prominent (any religion) leader was a woman.

Easy hill to climb, no?

[cbayer]

53. Not an easy hill at all...

and a hand up, a push from behind and a pat on the back are always welcome.

[dimbear]

59. I think I have the solution to the whole problem. Instead of thinking of any of these

guys, when we think atheist think Kathy Griffin. She's pretty much got it all.

Relatively young, too. That means staying power.

[cbayer]

60. She's great and I have really enjoyed her shows about her

loss of faith following her cancer.

But I've never seen her as a leader and don't know if she is even a member of an atheist organizations.

[dimbear]

61. If she avoids atheist organizations, that's another plus.

She has that 'person you would like to know and live next to and have barbecue with' vibe.

[cbayer]

62. Agree, would love to hang out with her.

Once of my other favorite female comedians is Kathleen Madigan. She tells a hilarious story about visiting Salt Lake City and going on tour of the Mormon churches.