More atheist women needed
Sarah McKenzie points out that religion and atheism both need smart women.
Part of the problem, I think, stems from the brand of atheism that is dominant today. Many people, especially women, might find it intimidating or unappealing…Atheists must be prepared to actively defend their non-belief, a process that by definition will offend many believers.
While there is most definitely a place for this so-called “militant” atheism, it is little wonder that some women might find it off-putting. After all, girls are taught to be sensitive and emotional, to not cause trouble or be particularly forthright with their opinions.
Some girls are. I can’t say that I remember being taught that, and if anybody really did attempt to teach me that, it obviously didn’t work. If anything it’s the other way around – I’m a woman, and women are seen as weak and placating and ingratiating, so I owe it to the gender to be abrasive and obstinate and contentious. That’s not it, of course…it’s not a matter of owing anything, it’s a matter of a visceral loathing of that image, and of wanting no part of it. I refuse to be weak and placating and ingratiating. So I get called a lot of hard names by a lot of threatened men, but I also have a good time. And maybe, who knows, I’m clearing a little ground for other women.
McKenzie seems to think so, much to my surprise. Kiran Mehdee pointed out this article to me, saying it mentioned me. I turned an unbecoming shade of puce when I found it was true.
All of this is not to say that there are no vocal or intelligent women out there talking about the role of religion, sharing stories about their own loss of faith and generally waving the atheist flag. However, we rarely hear the names of Dutch activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali or author Ophelia Benson mentioned alongside Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens.
There’s a treat! Putting me in that company. Excuse the narcissism, but…well you see I’m a shy blushing violet really, despite all the above, so I don’t expect this kind of thing, so when it comes along I have to boast about it as loudly as possible. Right? Right.
I liked this line from her article:
I’m an atheist who was raised in a fundamentalist religious home, and I certainly did the angry militant thing for a while, but I’m bored with being angry at religion. I want to move on.
Congrats on being mentioned in such illustrious company!
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Obligate Scientist , Ophelia Benson. Ophelia Benson said: More atheist women needed http://dlvr.it/3b4N0 […]
Congrats Ophelia! Nice mention.
This whole idea of outspoken women being shrill, hysterical harpies is one of perception. The same words coming out of a man’s mouth are often thought to be be confident and assertive. I have experienced this in the workplace over and over. One memorable criticism from one of my bosses was that it is “easier to catch flies with honey than with vinegar.” I had no idea what behavior he was referring to. It turns out I wasn’t ingratiating enough for both my male and female peers.
Although there are women out there who hold strong opinions and voice them, they are often ridiculed by society at large for doing so. The ridicule also often happens to often incorporate their physical appearance or sexuality, never mind the argument at hand. This can be off-putting. I know it’s a consequence I think about now before opening my mouth.
Keep fighting the good fight my sister!
I understand she is talking about modern atheists, but what about Emma Goldman? A strong, out-spoken and brilliant woman and an atheist.
Here is her article (from February 1916!) on the philosophy of atheism: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Philosophy_of_Atheism
You’re not boasting, you’re quoting. And I have all 4 authors in the same bookcase, so there.
Judging by my own experience, atheist women aren’t so much criticized as lacking femininity, but lacking sympathy.
Anna, flies are actually more attracted to vinegar than honey. Vinegar contains acetic acid, and the acid fools fruit flies into thinking there is fruit being fermentated. So when you quit that job, be sure to put a place of vinegar in your boss’s office right next to a plate of honey, along with a note that says APHORISM FAIL.
Yes, congratulations on the mention! And I’m glad to see McKenzie refer to the “brand of atheism that is dominant today” as a “so-called militant atheism.” Because I have yet to see proof of militantism from any of those who might be included as strong voices in this atheism of “today.” I hear/read authors who are forceful, articulate, and passionate about making their case. That’s not militantism so far as I can see. Really, it’s puzzling to continue to read such references (even McKenzie’s evenhanded one) about “militantism” without evidence that she or anyone could point to.
Like Sastra, I have all four of you in the same bookcase too, and I did mention you all together in a note on Why Evolution is True. Great mention. Not boasting at all. Well deserved. I think it’s the best selling thing: that’s what keeps the same names turning up again and again. You have to make it to the NYT best sellers list before you rate a repeated mention, I guess.
I have a book by Ophelia and some nasty guy, and a collection of essays one of which is by Ophelia. These deservedly share the same shelf of godlessness and philosophy that contains a Dawkins, Harris, Dennet, Stenger, Mackie, etc.
I felt rather ambivalent about this article when I first read it a few days ago. There are things to like, including the fact that it mentions you, but there’s also a sense of “Make Gnu Atheism nicer and colour it pink.” I don’t believe we should be doing that. It even sounded at one point that the author thought the pressure on Gnu atheists to be polymaths, in order to defend themselves from attacks from many sides, somehow made it harder for women to be Gnu Atheists. I guess she was not trying to say that women are less capable of this than men are, but if not it’s not clear to me what she was saying. Maybe I missed a nuance and should read it again, but it certainly didn’t seem clear at the time.
Aw shucks. [digs toe into the ground sheepishly]
I saw that you did, Eric. Aw shucks.
Russell…yes, probably; I didn’t notice; all I read was my own name.
Heeheehee
So perhaps we can look forward to seeing the 3 norns/fates of atheism along with the four horsemen of atheism.
This seems to be an onerous duty imposed on those who do not believe in invisible entities. Not that I would refuse to accept the job, but why just atheists ?
You know, I don’t believe in leprechauns either but I’m not militantly anti-leprechaun.
I’m anti any wacko belief in any supernatural entities that intrudes into the public space and brings nothing to the table when discussions about real problems such as global warming, stem cell research, abortion, euthanasia happen and in point of fact is an active impediment to any possible future where we have devised mutually acceptable solutions to these problems based on an honest, evidence based appraisal of the situation.
Now must go display my ignorance by arguing with Massimo, who has replied properly at last, but I don’t get it. Science depends on some philosophical assumptions; ok so why aren’t they part of philosophy? Because they’re not empirical! MP exclaims. I know, but if science depends on them, then in a sense they are part of science – science broadly defined. I see why narrower definitions are needed for some purposes, but I don’t see how philosophical assumptions that science depends on can be radically separate from science; I don’t see why there isn’t overlap. As in that table that Massimo did and Russell modified.
But maybe I’m just full of shit.
But maybe I’m just full of shit.
Pardon me Ms Benson, but if you don’t want a lawsuit, I suggest you stop using my trademark.
Sonny, I’ve been using that expression since before horses wore skirts.
:- )
Sonny, I’ve been using that expression since before horses wore skirts
Until I see a picture of a horse, in sepia print, wearing a tutu, I will not be convinced.
Speaking of Massimo, I wonder if any of his friends or confidants are privately telling him he’s making himself look all of about 12 years old – lord knows he won’t take it on board from any philistine commenters. Look at this:
I mean, really.
That article is what led me to this site. I’ve subscribed to your RSS feed, keep up the good work!
Thanks Lachlan! And welcome.
Josh…I know. I saw that and wanted to rebuke him as if he were a child. Honestly.
That would be because writers want to convey the message that atheists are the equivalent of religious fundamentalists, who are overwhelming men. I was disappointed that McKenzie placed no responsibility on journalistic bias.
You go, girl!
Of course, now you’ll have to thumb wrestle Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens.
Yay! Good job!
I’m not sure how related this is, but I can’t help but think of those, some of them self-described feminists, who describe the Gnu Atheists as being “white,” “male” and “Eurocentric,” and that true feminist solidarity includes being respectful of the religious beliefs of women of color, Muslim women, etc. Of course, by claiming over and over again that atheism is a “white male” position, that increases the perception that this is the case while also ignoring and “silencing” (so to speak) female and non-white atheists by never acknowledging their existence or allowing them to speak.
Oh and yeah, as I should have said earlier before I got distracted with Dr. Cubed –
You deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence, Ophelia. There’s a reason why you have dedicated readers: you’re one of the sharpest thinkers and essayists out there on politics, culture, and religion. B&W continues to fill an extremely important and too-neglected role in public conversation. I came across this site several years ago (I think it was a reference from Dawkins?) and was instantly hooked. I stayed for the quality, and because you have a talent for writing that’s rare.
Huzzah, Ophelia! It’s good to see other people realizing what we’ve known all along, which is that you’re one of our strongest and best voices.
As for the shameless self promotion, there’s no shame in engaging in a bit of it. I’m glad you did!
High Five to Ophelia!
(And though the triple doctor is annoying, his co-blogger, Julia Galef, is worth noting.)
Firstly, Ophelia: great that you got a mention, but you should be getting more – many more!
Secondly, Lisa Bauer: yes, yes and thrice yes. This has been exactly my experience with many feminists, and it drives me round the bend. It’s not just about ‘respecting’ the religions of women of colour, it’s also due to too much postmodernism floating around. ‘There are other ways of knowing’, ‘There is no such thing as objectivity’ – if I had a quid for every time I’ve read vague blather like this on feminist sites I’d be very rich. I’ve even been outright rejected from a feminist group because of my atheism/skepticism.
It is relevant to the article, because women – even feminists – police each other and this is partly what keeps them/us from achieving high status in atheist circles or anywhere else. Some women – and I’ve experienced this – do instruct other women to ‘play nice’ and to not be mean on the poor believers. A silencing technique, indeed.
When McKenzie says that there is room for a different type of atheism that is more nicey-nicey, to appeal to the ladies, perhaps she doesn’t realise that she is being just as sexist as the current movement that she is criticising? Perhaps the problem isn’t that women find ‘anti-religious’ atheism off putting, but that sexism within and without the movement (from men and women) works against them achieving the status of Dawkins, Hitchens et al?
Female atheists/skeptics, who particularly want to criticise religion’s treatment of women, get it from both sides. There is sexism in the atheist movement, but there is also anti-atheist sentiment within feminism. That’s why it’s so tough. The answer isn’t to try and forge a new atheism which fits into outdated stereotypes of ‘femininity’, or to stroll around mumbling fluff like ‘well I don’t believe in god but it’s totally super that you do’, it’s to keep shouting and being belligerent, which OB does so well.
I remember when you were contemplating letting this site die if the server stopped working one more time or something. At the time, I was dismayed at the thought of such a loss. People like yourself, PZ, Dawkins, Ali and others are so important.
You let people know that it is OK to be outraged, to call a spade a spade and not beat around the bush with touchy feely placating talk when there are real people having their lives and spirits destroyed by barbaric, ignorant, beliefs and “traditions”.
The world will be a darker place the minute people like Mooney et al, have things all their way.
R
Hmmm, but then I’d subscribe to the principle that you catch even more flies with a bucket of manure or a corpse. I need vinegar for Fish and Chips and the honey for roast pork.
“girls are taught to be sensitive and emotional….”
We all know atheists are by and large insensitive and unemotional, by comparison with those sensitive religious women who created the Duplessis Orphans http://archives.cbc.ca/society/youth/topics/1633/
Girls are taught to be subservient, too — another count against atheism.
That’s what that guy Stephen Prothero said in the Washington Post “on faith” column some time ago. Susan Jacoby said no thanks, and so did I (she did it there, I did it here).
No, thanks.
C Anders, I think that sounds like a wonderful idiom in the making. “You can catch more flies with bullshit than with vinegar. And honey really doesn’t work well at all, don’t bother.” Ann Landers approves.
Speaking of the relationship between science and religion, I just ran across this Templeton-funded, Faraday Institute-affiliated site http://www.faradayschools.com/index.html. Wow, that is just about all I can say is wow.
You know I actually think it is the way the press covers issues in general. I mean, it has been said before but the voice of authority tends to get portrayed as male, even when the actual movers aren’t.
A lot of women have done really great things in movement atheism, heck whenever anything actually gets done it seems to be a woman doing it, but somehow that is not the narrative that gets put out.
So it becomes a complete sausage fest because for some reason it would mean the end of the world giving a woman credit for something she did.
Well done. I agree with earlier commenters that B&W fills a niche. FWIW, I see PZ has recently making a point of drawing attention to women like yourself and Rebecca Watson.
I know he has, often specifically mentioning me. I said that when we met a couple of weeks ago. He says he tells the people who organize conferences – “Hey, ask some women already.” They tell him they couldn’t think of any. [bangs head on desk] There are a lot of women. I don’t mean me; there are a lot.
I’d like to second Shane’s nomination of Emma Goldman.
Nomination of Emma Goldman for what? Resurrection? :- )
Let me add my voice to the chorus of praise for B&W and its endearingly feisty author. :) Congrats, Ophelia, for the well-deserved mention!
That said, and without taking away from the praise merited by an excellent column, I think Sarah McKenzie missed one possibility for why atheist women aren’t heard from more often: there’s still too much sexism, and too much acceptance of sexism, among some atheist men. There was a thread on my site the other week where one regular commenter was arguing, in total seriousness, that the feminist movement was and is nothing but a sinister plot to outlaw everything that men enjoy. There was also a thread at PZ’s a little while ago where he talked about that abhorrent court decision in favor of the Girls Gone Wild company, and there were, not a majority, but far too many commenters defending that outcome.
By no means is there universal acceptance of this sort of thing among the atheist community, but there’s still far too much of it. It’s small wonder that women don’t always feel welcome. I think if we get our own house in order and make it plain to misogynists that they aren’t welcome, even if they’re atheists, then there will be a lot of female atheists who will feel more comfortable identifying with us and speaking up.
Thanks Adam!
Now I’m going to have to find that thread at your place…I can’t help myself…
Masochist, eh? ;) It’s this one:
http://www.daylightatheism.org/2010/07/selling-shame.html
See comments #42 and #45. That same fellow also spent most of the thread arguing that most accusations of rape are false charges made by women who hate men. I bet atheist women just can’t wait to march in solidarity with this guy, right?
Oh I found it – I went straight there. What a prince.
Also be aware that Ophelia has an engaging speaking style and that she might be the pen name of Jodie Foster (or vice versa). I assume she does not object to exorbitant speaking fees, when offered.
Well deserved, Ophelia.
Enormous speaking fees always welcome!
Thanks David.
Yes, well done Ophelia. For what it’s worth, I think of you alongside that exalted company, and I think plenty of others I communicate with do too.
[…] McKenzie, calling for greater female participation in the atheist movement (HT: the always-incisive Ophelia Benson). Most of the column is excellent, but where I think she goes astray is this: After all, girls are […]
[…] McKenzie, calling for greater female participation in the atheist movement (HT: the always-incisive Ophelia Benson). Most of the column is excellent, but where I think she goes astray is this: After all, girls are […]