Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While skimming the subforum to see if anyone had posted the link above yet (it was just published last night, September 11, 2014), I came across another thread discussing the ratio of males to females in atheism. Some folks in that thread asked why men so vastly outnumber women. I think the above piece provides some illumination, as well as highlights an issue I think we need to address as a community. It's long, but well worth the read.
Religiosity is closely related to how powerless a person feels. Men tend to feel more powerful than women and are encouraged to shed crutches like dependence on a deity. That's why they are more likely to report being atheists.
But does that really imply that they are also misogynistic? That's a whole different ballpark, ads far as I'm concerned.
While skimming the subforum to see if anyone had posted the link above yet (it was just published last night, September 11, 2014), I came across another thread discussing the ratio of males to females in atheism. Some folks in that thread asked why men so vastly outnumber women. I think the above piece provides some illumination, as well as highlights an issue I think we need to address as a community. It's long, but well worth the read.
Hmm.
Seems to me that this article is simply a reflection of society in general.
You will find exactly the same stories and situations in every single walk of life. Obviously in some societies misogyny is far, far worse than in our westernised culture.
In short, no I don't think misogyny will bring down the 'atheist movement', any more than I think it will bring down any other aspect of society.
For me the article starts really badly... A drunken hotel room encounter (that may or may not have happened) between two consentual adults - one who got drunk and the other, a renowned speaker who didn't. Yes and what else is new? Happens all the time. Don't women have any control over their own actions?
I realise I have been fortunate to have lived at a time and in parts of the world where feminism already made its mark and made it easier for myself and other women to live an a more equal society and that there are women in the world far worse off than myself, but I get tired of women in western society who want to blame men for everything.
I have been the target of unwanted advances but learned how to deal with it. It's human nature. Men and women are attracted to each other, that's the way life is.
Honestly sometimes I think women need to stop seeing men as some sort of demonic threat and see them as just people. It's about attitude and confidence a lot of the time.
In my career I never let myself feel threatened by men and ended up being promoted above many of them, hopefully not because I was a woman but because I worked harder than they did and was better qualified to do the job. That's just my experience.
Personally I admire many of the guys mentioned in the article. Dawkins has obviously been taken way out of context in the article. Christopher Hitchens, renowned atheist, was a great speaker on behalf of women. He spoke against female genital mutilation for years. If it weren't for people like Dawkins and Hitchens, I'm certain atheists would not have the voice they have today and that goes for men and women.
I have been the target of unwanted advances but learned how to deal with it. It's human nature. Men and women are attracted to each other, that's the way life is.
Honestly sometimes I think women need to stop seeing men as some sort of demonic threat and see them as just people. It's about attitude and confidence a lot of the time.
Agreed; men can be real pigs, but most of us are quite respectful of women and there is no need to play the victim.
My wife would totally agree with you re: attitude and confidence. Having grown up during forced busing and the era of flower children in the 60s and 70s, stepping over passed-out addicts on the way to school most days, she has seen it all. Through all that and her subsequent newspaper reporter beat in one of the nastiest ghettoes in the country, she learned to act like she was not to be messed with and she's never been assaulted in any way. And to this day she hates it when TV dramas depict women "losing it" and screaming helplessly instead of taking the situation in hand and acting like adults.
Some of this learned helplessness is a vestige of patriarchalism, but the purpose of realizing that is to grow out of it, not use it as an excuse to complain and play the victim.
Do isolated incidents of the sexual behavior of particular atheists define the validity or invalidity of atheism?
Atheists would be as willing to accept this as Catholics would be willing to accept that the behavior of some predator priests define the validity/invalidity of Catholicism.
I agree with Cruithne, we are not speaking of situations unique to atheists, rather of the imperfections of all people. I would not champion an embezzling public official regardless of that person's congruity with my beliefs about the cosmos, nor would I support the removal of a public official who has executed his or her public responsibilities well, simply because I learned that this person was also deeply religious.
In the case before us, it is an issue of proper sexual conduct, not an issue of proper atheist sexual conduct.
No, it's not going to derail the atheist movement. Sexism and sexual misconduct are going to be around for a long time, as will click-bait introductions. I agree with others that these problems aren't unique to atheists.
What bothered me most about this article was the author's use of the word "man" to mean men and women. If you're decrying sexism within a movement, any movement, why not use gender inclusive language?
From the article: "The roots of today’s crisis can be found in the post-war history of the movement. The groups that make up the broader freethought community — atheists, who don’t believe in a god; agnostics, who are unsure; secular humanists, who seek to replace god-centered religion with a man-made ethical system; church-state separationists, who just want religion kept out of public life; and scientific skeptics, who work to overthrow superstition and pseudoscience — have two things in common. First, they oppose the hegemony of religious, including New Age, thinking in American culture. And second, they all have roots in very male subcultures." --emphasis added
To me, this use of the word "man" is one example of how prevalent sexism is. I know many people who use man/men, intending for it to include women, who aren't trying to be sexist. Some aren't even aware of it, even in this forum. I bring this up because words matter. Just look at the debates here about word meanings....
As atheists, I think we need to be inclusive. I think the CD Atheism and Agnosticism forum is generally an inclusive place for people to exchange and explore ideas. I'm new around here and appreciate the forum.
For reference, the phrase "atheist movement" here is code-word for a group of people who have tried to hijack the label atheist to mean "extreme feminist who by the way also doesn't go to church". It was a failed attempt a few years ago by a few people to try and cash in on the atheist label to draw people towards their particular identity politics. Other than ruining the reputation of a few people who went overboard to support it, it has mostly been a non-event. I'm surprised to see current articles about it - I thought the PR organizations behind it have moved on to manufacturing other controversies to help with their fundraising.
For reference, the phrase "atheist movement" here is code-word for a group of people who have tried to hijack the label atheist to mean "extreme feminist who by the way also doesn't go to church". It was a failed attempt a few years ago by a few people to try and cash in on the atheist label to draw people towards their particular identity politics. Other than ruining the reputation of a few people who went overboard to support it, it has mostly been a non-event. I'm surprised to see current articles about it - I thought the PR organizations behind it have moved on to manufacturing other controversies to help with their fundraising.
Men don't get it. There is a great deal of sexism within the atheist movement and many women got fed up with it and with the fact that men refuse to acknowledge it.
Women aren't always flattered to be hit on just because you happen to be a skeptic or atheist and she is one also.
Men don't get it. There is a great deal of sexism within the atheist movement and many women got fed up with it and with the fact that men refuse to acknowledge it.
Women aren't always flattered to be hit on just because you happen to be a skeptic or atheist and she is one also.
I have no idea whether what you say is true or not - and as a married person not involved in whatever the atheist movement is supposed to refer to it really doesn't have anything to do with me. It also really doesn't address the facts that the Atheist+ approach of trying to shame and purge the ideologically impure has fallen apart. That's all I was saying, and why I was surprised to see it coming back again. I legitimately thought the PR folks behind it had moved on to raise funds from greener pastures.
First, didn't know there was an atheist movement.
Second, no.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
