At the Secular Student Union dinner tonight:

Guy 1: So, what was your talk in Minnesota about?
Me: The intersection of atheism and feminism, what we can do to get more women to leave religion, and how to make the atheist movement more welcoming to women.
Guy 2: Cool! Is the lack of women really that big of an issue? I’m just new to everything.
Me: For a lot of groups, yeah. I mean, just look at ours. There are only three women.
Everyone: Yeah… *shame*
Guy 3: Heh, I’m dating a third of the SSU’s women.
Me: So yeah, I talked about how to make groups more welcoming so more women join.
Guy 4: I guess that’s a good thing. Means there would be more girls to date.
Everyone: *glare*
Me: Um, that’s precisely what you shouldn’t say.

Super Duper Hint For The People Who Don’t Get Why This Is A Problem: Women don’t exist for the sole purpose of dating you. They can actually participate for the same intellectual and social reasons that you do. It’s fine to be attracted to someone and date within a group, but don’t only see a woman as Person Who I Want to Sleep With.

On the bright side, I’ll never be out of blogging material.

Because I’m his only female fan, at least according to our favorite Jen-hater, Jill at I Blame the Patriarchy:

Liberal dudes (and that boobquake chick) just love celebrity biologist Richard Dawkins. Even some Internet feminists may be said not to vomit blood at the mention of his name.

This premise is based on the fact that Dawkins happened to leave a single positive comment about a video promoting some potentially anti-feminists ideas.

Meanwhile, upon reading the Sommers speech, Dawkins was moved to comment: “Thank you for this. I have now read the lecture you recommend, and it is indeed excellent.”

The anointed one has spoken.

One passing comment is enough to damn The Anointed One – er, I mean, Dawkins – even though she spends the rest of her post addressing the video in question. And by addressing, I mean calling “funfeminists” who don’t necessarily agree with her particular view of feminists brainwashed.

Lovely.

I certainly don’t agree with many of the things in the speech in question – and I even think Jill makes some halfway decent counter arguments. But calling Dawkins a “intellectual Western motherfucker who is enamored of the glorious myth that he and his ilk, in their educated and progressive magnanimity, have liberated their women” for that single comment? Or worse, thinking people who enjoy and respect Dawkins must slavishly agree with him lest they be kicked out of the atheist hivemind?

You know, enjoying Dawkins doesn’t mean I have to agree with everything he says. Despite claims of my brainwashing, I can think for myself and have my own opinions – Jill is the one who seems to think the opposite. While I highly respect Dawkins in regards to atheism and biology, I wouldn’t be shocked to disagree with a 70 year old white British academic on the details of feminist theory.

But you know what’s really demeaning to women? Starting off a post reducing me to my boobs, and disregarding other women of the atheist movement. Abbie Smith at ERV has already torn this to pieces:

Um, ‘that boobquake chick’ is Jen McCreight. Shes a graduate student in biology. ‘Boobquake‘ was a really cool counter-attack to Muslims attack on womens personal rights and freedoms.

Jen, who brought attention to that very serious topic in a lighthearted, non-intimidating way, is just ‘that boobquake chick’.

A ‘feminist’ thinks its appropriate to dismiss (thus discourage) the positive actions of a young, intelligent activist female, with decades of activism ahead of her.

Of course, at least Jen gets to exist, even if she is unworthy of a name (or a link, very bad blog manners, ‘feminist’).

This ‘feminist’ is also a supporter of the sexist notion that religion is gender appropriate for females, while atheism is gender appropriate for males. Dawkins millions of female fans don’t exist– his fans are a bunch of ‘liberal dudes (and that boobquake chick)’. This ‘feminist’ might have marginalized Jens actions, but they marginalized the very existence of other women (or if they do exist, they must be indistinguishable from ‘dudes’, degrading their ‘femaleness’ by taking it away. When they’re religious like good girls they can have their gender back?).

The irony doesn’t escape me that I just spent the last week speaking to student groups about the convergence of atheism and feminism, why women should leave religion, and diversity within the atheist movement. Or that these talks went overwhelmingly well. Or that I was invited to speak about women in atheism at many national conferences over the next couple months. Or that the Executive Director, Trustee, and Store manager of the Richard Dawkins Foundation are strong, outspoken women. None of that matters, because Overlord Dawkins hath spoken (though not really), and thus the atheist movement is sexist.

Yep. Sound logic.