The Unbelievers: New Atheism and the Old Boy’s Club

I highly recommend this article by Victoria Bekiempis at Bitch Media. It’s one of the most well-rounded, unbiased, well-researched article about the gender problem in the atheist movement that I’ve seen written by an outsider. And it has a fabulous graphic:An evil looking robot with three heads, of Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett, towering in front of an exasperated tiny female atheist with a picket signI particularly like the closing paragraph:

So let’s reframe. For every mention of Hitchens, counter with a mention of Hecht. For every theory that male atheists are purer or more confrontational, let’s ask why we gender the philosophy of nonbelief to begin with. The ranks of atheists who don’t fit the popular profile are increasing, and with more attention paid to who isn’t a white male author with a fancy-pants book contract, the public face of nonbelief may begin to look as diverse as atheism’s adherents actually are. And if the work of women like Hecht, Jacoby, McCreight, and Gaylor indicates anything, it’s that there’s a need for atheist voices from all genders and sexes to—very rationally—make themselves heard.


And no, I don’t just like it because my name somehow got squished between fantastic women I admire. I like it because it reiterates a point I’ve always made: The awesome female atheists are out there and doing things deserving just as much attention as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett. We just need to start mentioning them more.

Eller offers an apology

A genuine one, this time.

Dr. Eller has offered an apology in the comments, so I wanted to share it:

This is David Eller. I realized soon after the incident that I had violated one of my own most valued principles: just as I ask atheists to stop “speaking Christian,” so I realized that I had as a male unreflectively “spoken male.” It is exceptionally difficult, as anyone will admit, to see one’s own prejudices and failings. I recognize the male privilege on which my reference was founded, and I learned something from the occasion. Actually, I learned two things during the weekend: a Jewish man reminded me that “Judeo-Christian” is a Christian-privileged way of speaking about religion, since Judaism and Christianity are really quite different. So I am more aware now of both the Christian privilege and the male privilege in my speech and thought, and I will try to overcome and eject both.


Thank you. I think he really “gets it” this time, unlike the immediate reaction after the talk. I understand that people can instinctively act defensive when called out, so I’m glad he recognized the problem after having some time to think about it, instead of getting more defensive.

I also want to say thank you to the commenters. I noticed the ratio of Understanding Support to Clueless Sexism was much better than in the past. There were only a couple “You’re just mad because you’re ugly”s and “You’re a frigid bitch who’s trying to suppress my evolved sexuality”s. Maybe I’m scaring the more sexist commenters away, but I like to think that more and more people are “getting it.”

What Greta said

Greta Christina points out a few more problematic elements of David Eller’s talk. I didn’t talk about them because I only half-heard them – I was distracted from carefully crafting my comment during the Q&A. Let’s just say when I heard “Jen” and “boobs,” I was kind of glad I didn’t hear the rest of the statement.
And I’d like to make a quick clarification. When I said “I had three very inappropriate remarks made during the conference about my chest”? That wasn’t the total amount of remarks about my chest – those were just the “very inappropriate” ones that crossed the line. I lost track of the number of boob jokes I received this weekend, thanks to mentioning boobquake on my talk on edginess (at the request of the event organizer).


Which is why I’m done speaking about boobquake at conferences. I’ve already said no to groups who wanted me to talk about it, and suggested another topic. I think we can learn interesting things from what happened, but I’m just sick of how people see it as a green light for sexual harassment. I can only tolerate so much.

We’re not here for eye candy

I’m sitting in the Oakland airport, about to head home from the American Atheist Rapture RAM. Overall, I had a great time. I really enjoyed the talks by Rebecca Watson, Greta Christina, and Matt Dillahunty – who I finally got to meet in person, and who was promptly added to my List of Awesome People. And like always, I enjoyed meeting a bunch of the attendees and some of my blog readers. Kudos to the organizers for a great conference.
But (from the title you knew there had to be a “but”) there was one incident that served as such a good example of the subtle sexism that’s common in the atheist movement, I have to bring it up.

During a talk on how we need to make the atheist movement less about arguing and more of a community, David Eller brought up bloggers and videobloggers as an example of a good aspect of community. With photos of popular atheist videobloggers Laci Green and Cristina Rad (ZOMGitsCriss) on the screen, he quipped that it was so helpful that they’re “pretty” and that we have a “pretty blonde Romanian” on our side. Without any mention of their intellect, wit, or content.

My patience was gone. I had three very inappropriate remarks made during the conference about my chest, and another woman confided in me that a male attendee made an astoundingly inappropriate remark about her appearance. When there was time for Q&A, I purposefully raised my hand. Eventually the mic made it back to me, and I said (paraphrased to the best of my ability):

“I have a brief comment. If you want to make the atheist movement more social, we have to be aware of the concerns of minorities, not insinuating they’re only helpful because they’re pretty and blonde. There are plenty of pretty blondes people can watch – these people are popular because they’re intelligent and witty.”

I barely got the whole statement out because people started applauding and cries of “Thank you!” sprung up across the audience.

Eller then offered a not-pology – saying he obviously knew how witty and intelligent Criss was, but being pretty doesn’t hurt because it can still attract more guys to the movement.

…

One, when someone calls you out on something stupid you said that obviously upset the majority of the audience, stop at “but” before embarrassing yourself further.

Two, if you are using popular videobloggers as examples because you think they’re intelligent, don’t reduce them to their looks. It blows my mind people need this spelled out for them. It perpetuates the idea that we’re just keeping atheist women around as trophies or booth babes, not because we appreciate their input. Sure, Criss is attractive – but that is irrelevant and inappropriate for a talk on community building at a conference.

Three, the atheist community doesn’t exactly have a problem recruiting men. Nor would I stoop to suggesting we need to recruit hot guys to lure in the ladies to solve our gender problem. It’s insulting, and not to mention heteronormative.

Yep, someone giving a talk on how to improve our community was horrendously out of touch with one of the most important and commonly discussed issues in said community. The irony has not escaped me.

Part of me hates blogging about stuff like this, because I don’t want to promote in-fighting or tarnish an otherwise successful conference with this issue. But the more we let crap like this slide, the more it’s going to get perpetuated. And I don’t want the atheist movement of 2021 to be a room full of white men scratching their heads, wondering what went wrong.

EDIT: Eller has offered an apology. More here.

EDIT 2: For people wondering about tone and exact wording, audio clips of Eller’s statement, my comment, and his reply are up here.

Indiana: Police can now enter your home whenever they want

What. The. Fuck.

INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer’s entry.

Seriously, were my family’s votes the only thing keeping this state from going totally insane? Did three liberal people moving plunge the state into complete madness? Aaauuuggghhhhh!!

If that article isn’t upsetting enough to you, you should check out Feministe’s summary of the effects of Indiana’s new abortion laws and defunding of Planned Parenthood.

You’re welcome.

When religion protects sexism

For those of you who have seem my talk on the intersection of atheism and feminism, one of my key points is that religion doesn’t necessarily create sexist ideas, but it does make them untouchable. We unfortunately live in a society where criticizing religious belief is viewed with contempt. We can’t question something because it’s protected by the bubble of “Respect my beliefs!” And then you get bad ideas – sexism, racism, homophobia, incorrect science – piggybacking on the theology and persisting through time.

My previous post is a perfect example of this. A Hasidic Jewish newspaper photoshopped Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Director for Counterterrorism Audrey Tomason – the only women – out of the White House Situation Room in what is now an iconic photo. I didn’t comment much on my previous post because I was busy at work. But I need to say more now that the newspaper has responded to the widespread fury over their photoshopping:

The allegations that religious Jews denigrate women or do not respect women in public office, is a malicious slander and libel.

Except that you are denigrating women, soooooo… yeah, not slander and libel.

The current Secretary of State, the Honorable Hillary R. Clinton, was a Senator representing New York State with great distinction 8 years. She won overwhelming majorities in the Orthodox Jewish communities in her initial campaign in ’00, and when she was re-elected in ’06, because the religious community appreciated her unique capabilities and compassion to all communities. The Jewish religion does not allow for discrimination based on gender, race, etc.

Except that you do discrimination based on gender, since that’s kind of what you did. Not that hard to wrap your head around. You do not post photos of women. You happily post photos of men. Discrimination.

We respect all government officials. We even have special prayers for the welfare of our Government and the government leaders, and there is no mention of gender in such prayers.

In accord with our religious beliefs, we do not publish photos of women, which in no way relegates them to a lower status. Publishing a newspaper is a big responsibility, and our policies are guided by a Rabbinical Board. Because of laws of modesty, we are not allowed to publish pictures of women, and we regret if this gives an impression of disparaging to women, which is certainly never our intention. We apologize if this was seen as offensive.

Except it does relegate them to lower status, because your religion is saying the mere existence of women is somehow immodest. You’re not giving an impression – you are being disparaging to women. You have a special rule that women can’t be seen and men can. That is sexist, no matter how much you scream “We’re not sexist!”

And people complain about Islamic extremists who keep their women covered in burkas? At least they can be seen covered up. Heaven forbid if a man knows women actually exist in the world!

Sometimes I think men should be the ones getting most upset about these ridiculous “modesty” laws you see in almost all religions to some extent. They’re all based on the idea that men are brutish pigs who can’t control themselves and will fall to sin and temptation at the mere idea of something with a vagina being in a ten mile radius of them. Isn’t it convenient how the solution to that problem is the oppression of women, and not self control and accountability of the men?

Commenter Chris Lawson had an additional good point that needs to be made:

You know, I might take them seriously if they put a black rectangle over the image of Clinton and labelled it with her name — it would still be sexist and objectionable, but at least it would be honest and it would let their readers know that she had participated. By photoshopping her out, they are lying to their readers and pretending she is a nobody. That is not respectful.

Exactly. This isn’t just about women not being able to be seen. What they’ve done is rewritten history to remove these women entirely.

Hasidic Judaism is an extremist sect, and obviously not all Jews or all religious people agree with these sort of actions. But this sort of defense of sexism in the name of religion is seen over and over again, and is why it’s so important that we speak out. You certainly have the right to practice your religious belief – but I also have the right to say you’re wrong and your actions are harmful.

This is going in my cubicle

Today’s xkcd:

Unfortunately “doing it so hard” often means “doing it twice as hard as the guys just to prove you deserve to be there and you’re not just filling a quota.” But us lady scientists can do it, and it’s getting better and better.