Those who have that kind of leverage
Paul Fidalgo blogs Melanie Brewster’s talk which also sounds terrific, on the subject of why there aren’t more women in atheism. Brewster is an assistant professor of psychology and education at Columbia.
She cited many older studies that asserted some kind of biological or psychological traits of women that prime them for religious belief, but then revealed that these studies were done with no actual examination of the biological components, and often they came from sociologists working from explicitly religious universities such as Baylor, Brigham Young, and Holy Cross.
But these dusty studies still serve as the foundation for popular understanding of these perceived differences, even among seculars, and she cautioned us to bring our own prized critical thinking to this question. “It’s lazy,” she said, for our own community to glom on to these incomplete studies, and we can do better.
She’s showing a slide of Sam Harris looking (as usual) smug, with a cartoon bubble of that ludicrous “estrogen vibe” explanation that annoyed so many of us a couple of years ago.
Also incredibly important, Brewster noted that the media only presents an extremely narrow view of atheist thinkers and leaders, almost all male, and the vast majority are white. “We need to start asking people in power to start forcing representation in the media,” she said, asserting that those who have that kind of leverage should insist that women and people of color get the air time they might have gotten themselves.
Or we could just wait a few more generations, by which time the planet will be under water.
Perhaps there would be more women in atheism if the atheist community weren’t so supportive of serial abusers. James Randi’s comments on he-who-must-not-be-named come to mind.
You mean MICHAEL SHERMER?
There may be an “estrogen vibe” in the sense that higher estrogen levels may be correlated with a certain kind of socialization (women might be raised to be more religious), though I doubt this is what Harris means.
No, I think that probably is more or less what Harris meant. That doesn’t make it a good or useful explanation, especially coming from him.
Uh, oh, you said it! Time for lawyers?
Seriously, if I were still sitting on the edge of the movement, looking at the way things like that have been handled would send me scurrying far away (not to religion; I never liked that ritual and lying and smug superiority of assuming you were the beloved of a supreme creator of the universe; and I hated getting in trouble just for asking questions).
I haven’t gone away from atheism, but I’ve slipped back from the center, and have left behind some things that once meant something to me because I found that I couldn’t deal with the crap. How many others never dip their toe in, because their first experience is with harassment?
I think I must have missed this ‘estrogen vibe’ thing…
I’d ask just what he even thinks he’s saying, but somehow, I too strongly suspect that way lie many embarrassed-for-you type cringes. And, honestly, I just kinda doubt it’d be that interesting, either. So I think I’ll pass. I think I’ve just had enough of all of that, by now.
And iknklast, honestly, I think you’re very right it drives people off. _I_ find it alienating as hell, seeing this stuff, and no, I’ve never been harassed, nor am I real near any category likely to be. It’s more: like I want to be anywhere near that, such people, that kind of scene. Just makes you feel dirty, and, thanks, pretty much full up to here with that, too.
It’s deadeningly _stifling_ living with that, like that, being expected to keep quiet, play along. You speak of getting in trouble for asking questions. This feels to me like a similar flavour of misery, on both sides. I _left_ religion, I think, primarily because I wanted to feel clean of the guilt that goes with collusion with those streamrolling into silence the merely curious and honest. Because, I think, mostly, there’s an order they’re attempting to preserve, existing dominances at stake, games for which the thoroughly poisonous rules are too well established. To say it’s a bit disillusioning to find something (or several somethings) so similar and so similarly ugly, among people I figured I could most hope would get that, too, is to understate immensely. More like: sometimes, it makes me want to scream.
I’m definitely not sure what an estrogen vibe is. Would soy products mimic estrogen vibes? What frequency does the molecule estrogen vibrate at, and how is it relevant to social areas. Perhaps he wants to set up radio waves at the proper length to excite the estrogen molecules? Does he think women are hoping for simulated hot flashes?
Meh, it’s probably got nothing to do with science and really just his very sloppy way of saying that he assumes women would like something that fits his stereotypes of femininity better.
If I remember correctly estrogen levels vary across the days of a month. . . so it’s just some of the estrogen vibing some of the time. . . and if I remember right a drop in estrogen and progesterone levels causes somewhat nasty rages in addition to other miserable symptoms. . . like wanting to hurt others by saying mean things about their hormones. . .
Or, going the other way, wanting to hurt someone who just said something nasty about my hormones? ;-)
Speaking of lawyers, DR. (that bit’s important) Richard Carrier is suing FtB, The Orbit, PZ Myers personally, Stephanie Zvan personally, Skepticon, and others, for $2,100,000 in total. Libel, defamation, loss of income, emotional distress, etc.
Perhaps I should also have said, “…and speaking of the presence of women in the atheist community…”
Oh good lord.
Good grief. For what?
More importantly, in which jurisdiction? If it’s the UK, they have a problem.
For discussing allegations that he sexually harassed women.
Pathetic. He just went down further in my estimation.
Hemant Mehta’s article on the lawsuit
Rob at #14 – the lawsuit was filed in Ohio. That’s-DOCTOR-Carrier-to-you apparently resides in Columbus.
Thanks clamboy, aren’t the comments to Hemants article lovely. He keeps such friendly company these days. Somehow I can’t see myself using an honorific for Carrier any time soon. And Richard, if you read this, for the record that’s because of my assessment of your character from your own writings, not due to anyone else’s alleged defamimg of you.