When the IDiots at the Discovery Institute can make a valid criticism of atheists, you know you’re in trouble. David Klinghofer tries to explain What the New Atheism's Gender Gap Tells You, and gets a lot wrong…but also points out some genuine problems, the same problems many of us atheists have also been complaining about.
What strikes me is the maleness of the "New Atheist" phenomenon. The stereotyped picture of a sea of ponytailed males at the atheist conference is not just a stereotype. As Green points out, survey information reveals a huge gender disparity. Of the U.S. population as a whole, women make up more than half, 52 percent. But according to Pew Research Center data, among declared atheist/agnostics, women account for only 36 percent. Whoa!
There’s a logic to all-male institutions, as to all-female ones. But show me a party to which women are invited but that they overwhelmingly choose to avoid, and I’ll show you a party to which I’d ask you to remember not to invite me.
By contrast, other faith affiliations reflect the overall population, or favor women slightly. For example, white Evangelical Christians are 55 percent female, Catholics 52 percent, African-American Protestants 57 percent.
Comparing atheists to religious groups is invalid; they have a tradition of familial engagement and a history of relative cultural uniformity, which gives them a leg up on membership. Atheists tend not to demand enrollment of family members, or to condemn apostates with quite the vigor of a religion. I agree that there is a logic to all-male institutions that tends to lead to deplorable behavior, but atheism isn’t all-male, while the Catholic clergy is. I’d also have to point out that atheism has not produced the equivalent of the Magdalene laundries or Boko Haram, so let’s not play the game of who hates women more, the godly or ungodly.
But yes, otherwise, atheism has a problem. I’ve been saying it for years. I’ve been fighting against it for a long time. It’s a fair cop — a lot of factors contribute to atheism being less welcoming to women and minorities than it should be. So let me explain what I see as the sources of the disparity.
Choice. Joining the atheist club is entirely voluntary — we don’t have many atheist grandmothers threatening to disown their grandkids if they marry a Christian, or deep family traditions that one would be excluded from if one left the non-faith. We don’t even make threats of imaginary hellfire if one fails to follow the dogma of atheism. With no force of compulsion anywhere, the only reason to be an atheist is enlightened self-interest…and women are fully capable of that. If an individual sees no advantage in joining, and there’s no social pressure to join, why should they? We even have a lot of atheist men who detest the idea of a social movement — they aren’t joiners — and refuse to identify as atheists.
In a sense, that’s not a problem, but a strength. You’re free to be an atheist or not. But the fact that more women than men choose “not” says we’re not doing a good job of appealing to their enlightened self-interest, and there are reasons for that, too.
Isolation. Go to any atheist meeting and talk to attendees: a majority of them are deconverts, and they will have stories about the difficulties of leaving their old faith, which in many cases fractured families and led to loss of friends (Greta Christina has a whole book on the issue, Coming Out Atheist). Becoming an atheist, for many, involves cutting ties and losing a social safety net, and who can do that? People who are already financially secure and independent. Women and minorities are economically less advantaged on average, and have more incentives to stay with the church, and may be honestly grateful for what religion does for them. The black church has a phenomenally good record of providing community support. When I lived in Salt Lake City, I knew working poor people who found the economic support of their local stake essential. Atheism doesn’t have that network of on-the-ground support, and also, way too many atheists look like stunned cows when you suggest small things, like that maybe meetings should offer child care, or there should be rules that discourage pawing the women-folk.
So as a newly emerging movement, we lack essential services, and the early membership is well-off enough that they don’t appreciate the need to offer support services, so we end up with a self-perpetuating division by class. It’s a cycle that needs to be broken, but much of our leadership is wealthy and oblivious.
History. Twenty years ago, you would have found that many of the prominent voices in atheism, and the people who attended atheist meetings, were focused on religious studies — there were a lot of old seminarians at these events! — and these were largely men because of the nature of religious bias. In the early 21st century, they were joined by, and the movement was largely revived by, an increasing focus on science. Dawkins, for instance, fired people up by examining religion critically from a scientific perspective (you know that The God Delusion wasn’t really a book of philosophy, right?), and that meant that a lot of the happy enlistees in the New Atheist movement were drawn from the science and tech communities.
And those communities suck.
Scientific communities are struggling right now with the issues of women in STEM careers, and the way systemic sexism discourages women from success. We have the Yet Another Mostly Male Meeting problem, where organizers are completely blind to the existence of active women researchers, and build whole meetings around a grossly biased speaker list. It takes conscious effort to overcome that. And the scientific community is a paradise of egalitarianism compared to the tech/engineering community, which is a thriving hotbed of vocal libertarian assholes with an abiding contempt for women. When that’s the talent pool from which you are drawing a lot of your new members, it’s not surprising that the atheist movement has a contingent of horrible people who make the movement unwelcoming to women. Women are smart to be reluctant to join that crew.
Media bias. The New Atheist term was popularized by Gary Wolf, in an article titled “The Church of the Non-Believers” back in 2006 (in a tech journal, Wired, of course), and it enshrined a trinity of men as the leaders of atheism: Dennett, Dawkins, and Harris. Later, Hitchens would join them to form the Four Horsemen. Right from the start, the media promoted a group of men to be the leaders of what was really a leaderless movement. But at the same time, there were women doing great work: where were Susan Jacoby and Annie Laurie Gaylor on the list of informal leaders? We’d be in far better shape right now if the media hadn’t been biased in their promotion of exclusively men as our “leaders” (you should know that Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens have zero status as actual, working leadership in any organization, other than their own foundations, and their only authority comes from their popularity. But they get all the press.)
Furthermore, modern atheism is an emerging online phenomenon, and much of our recruiting arises via tools on the internet. And what tools are those? The biggest are Reddit and Youtube. Unfortunately, these are conduits forged by the tech/engineering community (see above for the problems with that group), and they promote a malignant cult of Free Speech (meaning virulent hatred is A-OK) and anonymity that allows the very worst and loudest to flourish. When women get on Youtube and discover that two of the most popular atheist vloggers are misogynists like The Amazing Atheist and Thunderf00t, while women like Laci Green distance themselves from atheism because of all the hate that flows from the atheist groups there, is it any surprise that they don’t find atheism appealing? Enlightened self-interest again.
But wait! What atheist communities are you talking about?
The reason women aren’t flocking to atheism is simply that they know what they are doing, and are wise to avoid groups that don’t appreciate them. But Klinghoffer is missing the real story: there is no one atheist community. Rifts have formed over precisely this issue of women and minorities in atheism, and they’ve been widening and deepening over the years. This is a good thing. It means that there are groups within atheism that are far more open and tolerant.
For instance, look at the ex-Muslim community. I see women standing tall and leading by example, people like Heina Dadabhoy and Maryam Namazie and Sarah Haider.
There is Skepchick, a group by and for women, and openly atheist and critical of the atheist establishment. Klinghoffer even cites them, but you know, if you’re looking for any atheists who aren’t interested in pandering to the Richard Dawkins Foundation, there they are.
You can pick your meetings. I just got back from Skepticon, and there was no sea of ponytailed males
. Quite the contrary; half of the speakers were women (more than half, including workshop leaders), the topics were broader than “I hate religion” and “I love science”, and the audience was diverse with respect to sex, race, and class.
Look to the Black Skeptics. One of their leaders is the always fierce Sikivu Hutchinson, who is acutely aware of the problems in establishment atheism. She recently wrote:
As a racially polarized nation awaits the grand jury decision on the officer who killed unarmed teen Michael Brown, some atheists and Humanists are still hating on “mission creep,” intersectionality, and the “corruption” of white bread secularism by so-called “social justice warriors” who apparently just don’t get why the U.S. is the world’s greatest beacon of freedom and justice.
Expecting nonbelievers of color to hew to a limited secular agenda that fetishizes creationism and the separation of church and state, they seem to ask, “Why aren’t you people who come from woefully religious ghettos content with our table scraps?”
That’s a much clearer and far more succinct summary of the problems atheism face right now than anything I’ve written in this post. But she’s an atheist, too. She and Rebecca Watson and Maryam Namazie and Annie Laurie Gaylor and thousands of other women are the future of atheism, so when a creationist sneers at atheism’s gender gap, I can agree with him that it’s there, and it must be fixed, but that there’s also a New New Atheism emerging, one with a stronger, broader foundation in diversity, equality, and justice. Those are my people. And I see that gender gap shrinking within that community, even as it may be expanding in the Old New Atheism.
Journalists, there’s an opportunity here. Maybe you can write a popular article for Wired that declares a new kind of atheism, that features profiles of Rebecca, Maryam, Sikivu, and Annie Laurie with ominous photos of their faces emerging out of the shadows. There’s a bandwagon waiting to be leapt upon!
The only reason for the above said gender gap is that the women still lack the basic freedom to assess a situation and are being controlled by fanatics from multiple directions – paternal, maternal, peer, religious… When a sex is burdened with more responsibility than the other, they have to be naturally careful to not jump decisions and make conclusions. We have a society that forces women to be gullible.
Well, you don’t have to be a celebrity, or a well-published writer, or an activist, or go to specific conferences, or join an organization, to be an atheist. You just have to think critically and come to a conclusion. There isn’t any initiation ceremony and you don’t have to go around mouthing any particular phrases or wearing odd clothing or attend any weekly congregations. Atheism is not something you join or even necessarily central to your identity. So there seems something off-center about this discussion. I don’t have to care about whether there is a community that welcomes me or not to decide I’m an atheist.
I think @1 was a hideously misogynist pile of crap, but it’s too incoherent to be sure.
Frankly, for those women who ‘convert’ to atheism, I can’t see much about Dawkins’ ilk to recommend them over the openly patriarchal structures they grew up with. At least the religious are open about their bias. The Dawkins crowd pretends they’re above all that, meaning they can’t work to make it better, or they’d have to admit having been no better morally than the religions they’re criticising, which they’ll never do – superiority to everyone else is too central a part of their self-definition to risk it for the majority of the human race (that portion having less than the full slate of privilege traits, e.g., white, hetero, cis, man).
Deepen those rifts, baby. I want full-on continental subduction here.
CaitieCat, all I can say is that once again, you have said it all.
Movement atheism is a boys’ clubhouse, and they don’t want any icky girls and their icky cooties in it. Fine. I’ll go do my own thing by myself, and Dawkins and his followers can wonder why their numbers are dwindling.
#1: Women are gullible & controlled? Do you know any?
#2: Your privilege is speaking. Yeah, you don’t need anybody else in the world, you think. Most humans (me included) are happier to be part of a community.
Sure, I’m happier to be part of a community but that’s beside the point. I’m not part of an atheist community, I would like to be, but I’m still an atheist. I don’t see what that has to do with privilege, I can’t help thinking what I think.
Like many of non-believers I feel like I’ve a lot more in common with feminists and other humanists, for example, than atheists per se. Especially given the narrow-mindedness of Dawkins & Harris about people Not Like Them: who want a diverse community that addresses societal problems here.
(Not to be accommodationist, but to make common cause with people who are not dogmatic, do not claim righteousness via revelation.)
We want a movement that’s about more than being godless, so we have to build it and it may not have “atheism” in the name anymore.
Thanks for your part with FreeThoughtBlogs in bringing so many of us along!
Your points are spot on but would you not also agree that due to socialization, religion has a disproportionately greater effect on women than men? Isn’t there a male privilege in this regard? I get the sense that if a guy leaves his faith the negative consequences (eg. disowned by family and community) are less than if a woman leaves. And I would argue that this is more of a phenomenon in the US. I’m curious as to the proportion of women atheists in more egalitarian societies (eg. Sweden, Norway, etc.) wherein the patriarchal religious structures are far less.
Read the point titled, “isolation”.
@1, thankyou for condesplaining to me why I don’t attend conferences. It’s clearly not because of the dudebro culture displayed by many prominent atheists, nor the faux-feminist men who want to tell me what I should be concerned about, nor the fact that men that are likely to be serial sexual assaulters and/or rapists are invited to speak, nor the alarmingly high number of individuals who whined about anti-harassment policies at gatherings. Nope, none of those things. I’m not active in such things because I’m forced to be gullible.
You may fuck off sideways into the sea.
Aw, but that’s my life goal!
+++
I actually quite like Klinghofer’s party analogy. But the thing he completely misses is that while atheism might be the party you’re invited to, religion is the party your parents are having and where you are whether you like the guests or not cause it’s your fucking house.
Comparing atheists to religious groups is invalid
Indeed. One thought I had was “And just how many female Christian apologists do you see out there?” Oh, wait, he said “party to which women are invited.” Maybe they don’t invite their women!
But I don’t want to come off as pulling a tu quoque fallacy. Atheism has a problem. I actually abandoned my local atheist community this summer because I got fed up with the sexists and conservative jerks in the community.
Because the visible figureheads of Atheism are predominantly white asshole mansplainers who would rather be right than kind? Asking someone to give up everything they’ve been taught since they were children, possibly leaving behind family and friends to join up with the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Bill Maher is a pretty tall order. I know many kind and gentle atheists, male and female, but they aren’t the type of person to go out and become a figurehead for the cause. If we’re going to get more people (including women) on our side, the only way to do it is at a grassroots level, living our lives as atheists and giving love and support to our fellow humans.
It’s true, the demographics of self-identified non-believers show a male bias, but for the arseholes at the Discovery Institute to pretend that they have the moral highground to point this out is fucking ridiculous (but then again, they always are). Tell me about boy’s clubs being a problem, which they are, when you are not a member of the biggest, most influential one…
Just because women in your community are willing to identify under your banner, it doesn’t make your group egalitarian in any way whatsoever other than purely numeric values. Oh yeah, you are super inclusive and welcoming to women, just as long as they give up their basic rights and dignity…
Arseholes…thinking they get to point this out to score points against atheism…” Look at those atheists with their sexism…not like us, right Mary? Stop cleaning the kitchen for a moment, i’m speaking to you. Don’t you talk back to me, i’m the head of this household, now shut up and pop out babies”.
Anyway, the gender gap is absolutely a real problem that needs to get fixed. I’m so glad to know there are so many people out there trying their hardest to create a better movement and a better world.
@12 Leo
That’s exactly it. It’s not at all a problem that there is a huge disparity between male/female preachers and other clergy members, control of the household, social leaders, etc, for example, because they are not invited. In those areas where they have deemed it acceptable for women to actually exist, there is no disparity so everything is totally ok!
That was higher than I thought it’d be. There are certainly a lot of other groups where women seem less represented: creationists and Objectivists to name just a couple. Oh, and there’s another big one, starts with a G…
So you don’t want to be a Republican any more?
I also wonder if the gap has to do with the love for children. I’ve noticed over the years, with rare exception, everyone I know gets more religious when they have children, and the effect has tended to be more pronounced among the mothers. If they were believers before, they became moreso. If they were hardcore atheists before, they became more accomodationalist (I think I hurt my tongue). I wonder if this has to do with the pain at the thought of their children dying and rotting one day. I’d be interested in seeing how the polling data breaks down between the childless and the parents.
I was drawn toward movement atheism, having been an atheist (all by myself, #1) for some 25 years at that point, by voices which outwardly professed to take my interests to heart. It was when I got closer that my curiosity and hopefulness were dashed against the realization that my interests weren’t actually being addressed, that voices such as mine weren’t actually being listened to, but rather, were being used as a shield against criticism and a weapon against other women. No siree, that is not the movement atheism to which I seek to belong. It’s why I was prompted to leave Christianity in the first damn place: paternalistic contempt disguised as concern for my wellbeing and men telling me they knew what my real needs and interests were, so if I’d just shut up and toe the line they’d take good care of me. Phooey.
And the commenter at #1 shows exactly why I have never cared for movement atheism. I’ve been openly atheist my entire life, used to get me in trouble with kids at school decades ago. But listening to boys and later men tell me how rare it is that I’m a girl and not gullible…yea…fuck that. Not so different from the “cool girl” crap that you get for being into video games, or science fiction, or any one of any number of things that someone has decided is “boys only”.
Looks not so different from church attitudes towards women sometimes.
I’d also add that many of us only have so much to give. That movement atheism has been a boys club, along with tech, STEM, and any number of other areas of life, means that it’s just one more place where women have to fight for acceptance or recognition. It’s a fight I, and others I know, just don’t have the energy to deal with on top of these other fights.
scienceavenger
FIFY
See, this is exactly the unhelpful kind of speculation made by people who don’t know about the situation people are in and don’t bother to ask them, but who feel confident in speculating about their lives.
BTW, my husband became more firebrand when he became a parent, because then he noticed how religion was being shoved into our faces and how we are actually suffering disadvantages from being atheist, not the least that our children often feel excluded when state sponsored religion becomes part of their everyday lives.
Klinghofer wrote:
I like PZ’s explanation of how wrong it is to measure the population of atheist communities, but how did Pew acquire that data? Was it a simple (secret) questionnaire (e.g.): “What is your religion?
(a) Christian,
(c) Jewish,
(d) Muslim,
(e) other _______,
(f) none”.
— I doubt it. But even if; I think people may just think of the comradeship they receive at services on Sunday and check that box, thinking Atheism is too lonely; rather be a member of this group than thatone.; or that claiming ‘Atheist’ is slapping their religious friends “behind their back”, so refuse to do so.
I also think there is a significant hesitation for one to declare, “I AM an atheist”, as opposed to answering “No” to the question, “Do you believe in God?”
In my experience, I rejected my Catholicistic upbringing, long before declaring myself Atheist. That may be what’s going on with these population counts.
I think the distinction has to be made between “atheism” and “movement atheism”.
As an intellectual concept, there are no barriers that prevent women from arriving at the conclusion that no gods exist. Women do thinky just as well as men do. The issue from that perspective is whether women feel safe enough to declare their atheism in the various public opinion polls, or whether there indeed is a disconnect between men and women in the intellectual concept. I don’t know the answer to that and I think that is its own topic that Greta and others have dealt with recently.
If we limit ourselves to the much smaller question of “why don’t women go to our meetings or join our organizations”, I think PZ’s response is spot on. When have the various “movements” declared themselves to be open and accepting of women? And what’s the potential personal and societal penalty derived from joining such organizations and, in effect, coming out as a member of a population that is more vilified than the Ferguson police department or Congress?
I also agree with PZ that “movement” atheists too easily dismiss the role religion plays in building community and in smoothing the bumps on the road to life. When my dad was on his death bed, it was the minister’s prayer that essentially gave him “permission” to finally give up — he died within an hour of that prayer. My mother’s liberal Christian church is her anchor. She volunteers twice a week at the food pantry, goes out to eat with her friends there, and generally has found a community she feels safe and comfortable with. I’m genuinely happy that she has that anchor. And I can easily imagine there being a goodly percentage of her co-congregants who are similarly anchored but who concurrently have serious doubts about the theological claims made during services. One has little to do with the other–even in those churches with more malign philosophies than my mother’s.
There is nothing even close to that community building within “movement” atheism, aside from the very few (nonexistent in my neck of the woods) Sunday gatherings of atheists. When there are atheist organizations that theists join despite their anti-theological stance, then we’re getting somewhere. Until then…which may be “never”…we need to recognize the fact that religion does provide some comforts and community that organized atheism is woefully lacking.
Not to say that I’m joining a church anytime soon. Personally, I find the concept of religion bizarre and slightly revolting. I’m no hypocrite. But that doesn’t prevent me from giving the food pantry a case of toilet paper every month.
…and a much smaller addendum.
I’m glad that the Discovery Institute has apparently abandoned all pretext that it is anything other than a religious organization. The previous subterfuge was fooling no one.
Really good article, PZ. Thanks!
I am still reading up on the differences between New Atheism and old or plain atheism so this will probably be a naive question but is it really the case that there are fewer women in New Atheism? There weren’t that many female old plain atheists from what I remember.
@24 Bea Essartu
Depends on your frame of reference. “New” atheism is a relatively recent phenomenon. I think we can probably date it to the publication of “The God Delusion”.
When I was growing up, the only atheist I knew was Madelene Murray O’Hair. Who was from my perspective someone who was “not a nice person”. So, even though I was a non-believer from about age 8 or so, there was no way I wanted to be associated with someone like her.
If you’re talking historically — again, the distinction has to be made between those who were “freethinkers” intellectually/conceptually, and those who made speeches. Of course, the world was different back then. Remember, women have had the right to vote for fewer than 100 years in the US (think about that for more than a second without your mind boggling). The opportunity to be a public speaker or even to not be under your father’s or husband’s “protection” (eg, total control) was limited to say the least.
Can’t say I’ve read previous comments from the poster, so maybe I’m not aware of something everyone else knows. I don’t know about comment 1.
While it sounds misogynist and rather ill-worded, it also sounds like it is commenting on misogyny, patriarchy, and the fact that women rather fall on the “less” end of the privilege access for gender. I don’t think the commenter has internalized the more formal concepts and terminology. If others here don’t think that there aren’t attempts to control women or treat them as lesser through differential treatment in families, education, employment, and the general cultural atmosphere, never mind controlling their bodies even more directly via legislation and medical practice, I don’t know what I’ve been seeing my whole life or reading here these past several years. I don’t see anything there that says women are innately lesser beings, but society holds them to different standards and consequences from the max-privilege male gender end of that axis.
Maybe I’m missing something, but I honestly can’t tell if this should be a “fuck you” or a “101” moment. If I am to risk being overly charitable here, I must also admit that I don’t know the best starting point offering advice or information for the proper concepts and language with which to discuss these things (lurk a bit – this is always good – pay attention to the dialogue and look up what you don’t understand), but here are some reference links:
https://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/the-faqs/faq-roundup/
http://pharyngula.wikia.com/wiki/Social_justice_link_roundup
http://pharyngula.wikia.com/wiki/Sexism_Education_101_Link_Dump
And good luck, comment 1.
scienceavenger @16
I don’t buy this. Many parents, including my own, see their children leave their religion. The thought of one or several of their children burning in hell doesn’t seem to lead them to leave their religion very often.
I think Giliell has it right in her #19. From my anecdotal perceptions growing up in fundamentalist Christianity, many mother receive most of their support (social, emotional, and even financial) from the church. Fathers often have their social needs met at their workplace, but for mothers in fundamentalist churches, most of the adult interactions and friendships they have are at church events. Many people have to give up some relationships when they leave religion. In the case of my mother and many of the other mothers I knew growing up, they would have had to give up all or nearly all of their relationships and support.
Giliell @19
Yup, I became atheist after I had my first child. Something about the scorn and derision of having an out-of-wedlock child… Dunno, kinda turned me off.
F
Well, comment 1 turned me off because the phrase “the basic freedom to assess a situation” is rather patronizing in and of itself. Makes women come off sounding as rather stupid in general, like we can’t understand bad situations when we’re in them, because we need some mysterious outside information rather than just the lived experience of being, you know, in a bad situation.
Then there’s this bit:
Which means… umm, women have more responsibility (is this a stab at the whole child-rearing and house-keeping bit?), which means they stop thinking? Naturally? If I’m responsible for others (such as, say, for instance, children) I’m far more inclined to come to decisions and draw conclusions about my situation because I know that those decisions and conclusions impact not only myself, who may be able to deal with it, but also my children, who don’t need to put up with that shit (whatever that shit may be). So, all those responsible women are incapable of thought or do not wish to think – that’s how I read that, though maybe someone else can clarify.
And the last bit:
Let me fix that:
Because who’s eating up all the toxic masculinity around them? The men are. Who’s taking on the patriarchal role handed down generation to generation? The men are. Etc. It’s not just women in a gullible society, and to paint them as the only ones inadvertently trapped in a society where they must be gullible (and really, the thought that women can somehow be forced into gullibility?) singles them out unfairly, and could easily be read as a misogynistic sentiment. Because men are obviously thinky enough not to be gullible at all. Or something.
Anyway, that’s my take on it, though you’re welcome to be charitable to that particular comment(er).
I have no idea, but I’m certain that the answer won’t be found by asking atheist women. Should an atheist woman happen to force you to listen to her reasons, be sure not to take her seriously.
Discovery Institute Board of Directors:
http://www.discovery.org/about/board-of-directors
The other screwed up parts of the post have been dissected already, but regarding the first sentence: yes Chengis Khan, it’s certainly true that the existing paternal, maternal, peer and religious forces at play in society are detrimental to a person’s ability to escape shitty ‘situations’ like organized religion (or abusive relationships of any kind). People generally, but women (and LGBT folks) in particular. I think the terms you’re looking for here are… patriarchy and privilege. Yes, those ones. Despite the best efforts of arrogant assholes everywhere to strawman feminist terminology into oblivion, they prove to be valid when you really study the issues well. Maybe you know all that, in which case I apologize for condescension.
But this absolutist language, saying it’s “THE ONLY REASON” for the phenomenon? That is bullshit, and nitpicky as it may seem, employing that word just kneecaps your whole point. You see it EVERYWHERE in comments sections and real life discussions, and it is anathema to good thinking. I used to do it all the damn time, and it’s a hard habit to break for some. Things are just not that simple, and it’s very likely going to rub people who know first-hand what’s going down (in this case, women with religion in their personal histories) when we strut in with pat declarations to that effect.
They’d rather be wrong than equal.
If movement atheism is the same things as being an outspoken atheist then I don’t see the personalities of the current mostly white male movement atheists as being that much of an issue to women considering whether or not to become a movement atheist. Most people classify other people in terms of their presented gender so new female movement atheists will not be strongly linked to existing male movement atheists so the risk of people thinking that the women will have the same personalities as the men is pretty low. I think that for most women it must be some other issue instead.
Bea
I doubt it’s about having the same personalities as the men.
I expressed myself poorly. I was saying that I don’t believe that what prevents women from becoming outspoken atheists is a worry that they will be associated with the current male movement atheists in the minds of others. I rather agree that men and women often have very different personalities.
Bea @ 35
I can tell you one of the big things that has stopped me from being as outspoken as I once was about atheism is the push back, threats and abuse heaped upon the women who do speak out about atheism. I don’t want to deal with that and I’m not about to encourage anyone else, male or female, to join a group of people who think it is okay to treat others in that manner. I’ve gone from proudly atheist to contentedly Humanist.
ScienceAvenger @ 16
Speaking only for myself, my atheism softened after giving birth for several reasons. 1] I had more important things on my mind, like raising a child, putting food on the table and sleep deprivation. 2] I know that the USA is still predominantly Christian and that many of the problems my child(ren) would be facing would be caused by religion and/or Conservative politicians. As a parent it is not a good idea to teach blind hatred, especially as many religious people are not monsters. Knowing your children will be socialize with children whose families are religious to various degrees it doesn’t help the children to put your views ahead of their future. I didn’t want my children ostracized at the tender age of 2 because of my worldview. So as with many other things, you soften your edges, make sure everyone plays nice and then educate your children to understand critical thinking and point out little things here and there (science denialism, gender/racial discrimination, religious hypocrisy) as they grow. When they are old enough to figure things out then deeper discussions can happen. I didn’t raise my children as atheists, I raised them as freekthinkers.
As a female atheist, I tend to avoid outspoken atheist men for personal relationships. I mean, don’t get me wrong, my best friends are all atheist men, but I didn’t know about their lack of religion for some time after we met. In my experience, it seems that the sooner a guy brings up his atheism (in casual conversation, not in an actual discussion of religious topics), the more… “aggressive”, I guess, he tends to be. He’s more likely to dismiss me as an “SJW” when I bring up an example of unfair treatment, and god forbid I mention being a feminist. (Or use the phrase “god forbid”.)
I’m trying to figure out if you are talking about you or me, because I have asked them, but didn’t find their answers very informative. These weren’t casual acquaintances, but people I knew very well and discussed the issue with in great detail. I’m glad to hear your husband bucking the trend.
@29 You win the net. Good advice for all. Perhaps PZ could have a woman-only thread on the subject.
@36 Thanks for the insights, ironically, that was very much how I was raised by my nonbelieving father, whose philosophy of childrearing was very much like yours.
rq @ 28
I agree rather completely. But I’m wondering if the problem is not one of ignorance, as the comment seems directed against gender expectation (nay, demands) and how culture enforces or tries to enforce that. I have no argument that the thinking is muddled and the phrasing atrocious, but I am questioning whether it is mere ignorance of the proper thinking and verbiage to make an observation, or if the individual is just an ass.
I’m not going to make a defense, nor expect anyone to put up with crap they deal with constantly. The language certainly falls into the annoying-at-best category. And if Chengis Khan doesn’t come back and read some of the links or discuss what they said, then nothing I can do to help point them at a little education. – All I can do is point, I’m not qualified. Therefore I will also shut up now unless someone wants a response form me and I’m lucky enough to be able to catch it within a reasonable amount of time. Otherwise, mea culpa and apologies for any of my own missteps.
Re Chengis Khan #1
I took the first statement to mean that women lack the freedom, not the ability, to assess, to wit even if a woman assesses she is ignored or a man’s assessment is preferred. I took the last part to mean that if a woman assesses and promotes her assessment then she is considered pushy, uppity, or some other derogatory label. The responsibility part in context is meaningless. The “…” may be an actual ellipsis and an important clarification is left out.
.
@ demiurge #31
Then I refreshed and read demiurge at #31. I’m not certain what “strawman [verb] feminist terminology into oblivion” means but while patriarchy and privilege are fine words, “…paternal, maternal, peer, religious…” gives, to me at least, a much greater sense of the omnipresence of the pressure. Also, I didn’t take the use of “only” to indicate sole cause, but as colloquial exaggeration.
@ PZ #5
Do I know any gullible and controlled women? Yes I do. I know women who think it’s proper to be absolutely subordinate to their husband, I know women who believe that a copper bracelet with symbols on it will cure whatever. I also know men who believe that thousands of ebola infected isis terrorists are crossing the border daily to destroy the US.
Gullibility is a human condition.
@ Bea, #35
I am going to be charitable here, though I’m much more inclined to snark. I must therefore assume that you have no idea that this reads like the various evo-psych bullshit arguments that ‘women’ are one way, and ‘men’ are another. This sentence is also something of a slap at we women who do not act stereotypically ‘feminine’ (most of which is trained into us from a very early age). I’m a person with a huge range. I can be, and often am, aggressive, outspoken, and stubborn. I have a violent temper that I’ve worked hard to keep under control. And I can also be gentle, deferential, and a peacemaker… usually so at work. I am a person. I don’t have a ‘woman’ personality or a ‘man’ personality. I just have a personality.
I believe that I have witnessed what triamacleod is talking about. A male atheist said some things to a group of abortion protesters in front of a clinic. Then the female with him said maybe half as much and in no way more aggressively. But all of the counter-arguments were aimed at her instead of him. At the time I assumed that they focused on her because of her sex and because they seemed to think that she was about to go into the clinic for a procedure. But maybe it was more than that.
Again I expressed myself poorly. When I wrote that men and women often have very different personalities I was not saying from where this comes. I was only commenting on what I have seen in real people after genetics and upbringing and society have all had their effects.
There is an atheist movement it just isn’t centralized with a Pope or have a single holy book
cadfile:
Hush now, you will make the Dawkins fanboys cry.
Teresa Fairchild 13
And we also need to advocate for enhanced social services (note the mention in PZs post about churches providing a minimalistic social safety net. It’s insufficient and crappy and hedged about with ridiculous victim-shaming bullshit, but since public welfare is the same way, what the hell.) We also need to support things like well-enforced harrassment policies at work and school, reform of law enforcement to take the issues of disadvantaged people seriously and stop victimising people themselves, publically shame bigots, etc. etc. etc. note that none of this will necessarily bring women or minorities into movement atheism, but it will help a whole shitload of people, make a better society, and also weaken the hold of religion generally, all of which are good things in and of themselves, and worth working for anyway.
scienceavenger
If I facepalmed any harder, I’d have driven my hand through my skull.
I note that there are only three women on the Discovery Institutes’s site. so maybe they need to pull the log out of their own eye first.
That being said, excellent points PZ. We need to do better, and we need to work harder on creating more welcoming environments.
I think that the questions of why aren’t there more female outspoken atheists? and how do we encourage more women to be outspoken atheists? are quite different. I would prefer to start with the first question and fix the problem such that the second takes care of itself. I worry that going directly to the second question might not work as well.
I have been through probably every belief system out there when trying to “find myself”, or just trying to figure out life and what is truth. Christians and materialist atheists seem to be the most sexist. The former use God and the Bible to justify women’s supposed inferiority, the latter use biology/nature to justify the same conclusion.
When I went through my pagan/wiccan phase, even though the monthly meeting I went to was about 70% female, the guys into Crowley/OTO in the online message group for that organization would ridicule the women and one guy started sexually harassing me after I posted an Amnesty International petition to stop female genital mutilation. It was weird.
The one place I never experienced men talking over women or any sexism was in the metaphysical groups I would occasionally take part in. Everyone was treated like an individual, like a unique soul of equal worth and importance. I know the idea of a “soul” is not popular with atheists, but I still believe in it in a way. Even if we don’t literally have a soul in the religious sense, I think it’s important to treat people like they do.
Funny that so many – largely men – feel the need to get in that important disclaimer that the critics from DI should see to their own obviously worse sexism, even though yes, reluctantly, they’ll admit we do have some issues.
A sort of faint self-praise to soothe the ache of having to recognise our own sexism? That’s my working theory. “Yeah, but we’re not as bad as they are!” is the sort of remark I’d expect of the kid caught with hand in cookie jar: “I only took 3 cookies, Muhammad and Jesus took 5 each!”
I think #1 has a point: women have less access to education and are expected to be more “intuitive” and less “rational” and this kind of bull, so they end up being overrepresented in woo and pseudoscience, hence “more gullible”.
This has the negative feedback of further increasing the visibility of gullible female role models (Oprah Winfrey comes to mind).
Now, I don’t know about western societies, but I am sold to the idea that making education available to women in third world countries is key to a better world. (Incidentally, any suggestions for worthy charities working in that field are very welcome).
A thought, FO; I know you’re trying, so let me try and say it nicely: when you’re in need of data, and feel the urge to mine your rectum for it, consider not doing so.
That is to say, citation needed, in your 52. I see your Oprah, and raise you Deepak Chopra, Dr Phil, and Pat Robertson.
This is the stuff that was the background noise of my childhood:
Boys were never taught anything similar. This is mainstream Christianity.
And this joke I heard an older male cousin say at the dinner table:
“What did Adam say to Eve?”
“Shut up, bitch.”
@CaitieCat, Harridan of Social Justice #53: Thanks and no worries.
I still have a lot of sexist ideas and having them challenged is the shortest route to get rid of them.
Also, I’m not in a position to tone troll, so if I say something really stupid please call it out as you just did.
Now, to the matter.
My female significant other has strong feelings on the issue; she being a girl it was not proper of her to question ideas as being confrontational is unbecoming to a woman.
According to her it’s a cultural problem: men read Sports Illustrated and wank over football stats, women read woo-crammed health/fashion magazines and listen to Oprah.
Further, women are indeed expected to be touchy-feely and not very rational.
To this, I would add that the various woomeisters that you list, enjoy a largely female audience (when was the last time you saw Chopra on Sports Illustrated?)
Besides the recesses of my ass, some harder numbers can be found here:
http://www.thesocial.ca/thejessfiles/on-science,-pseudoscience-and-the-state-of-science
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/c7/c7s5.htm
Thank you for your time and your patience.
I’m not convinced that the problem has that much to do with women being brought up to be more open to woo than men. I believe that a quick survey would show that males are as over-represented in pseudoscience and such nonsense as they are in outspoken atheism and all the STEM fields. After all it’s Ken Ham not Karen.
F.O.
How does Sports Illustrated encourage atheism or rational thought? On the contrary, the sports world (in the US, anyway) is very religious. I believe Chris Kluwe is the only NFL player to come out as atheist. As PZ discussed in the OP, this generation of atheism is largely populated by people from science and tech fields, which has nothing to do with Sports. All of my male coworkers in my tech job are atheists, and none of them are big sports fans, and all but one professes hatred of pro sports. I’m extremely hesitant to accept that Sports Illustrated has a significant influence on men’s greater tendency to join atheist movements.
To me, this juxtaposing sports against woo-meisters and saying it has anything to do with men being encouraged to be rational while women are encouraged to be irrational makes zero sense. It looks like, “Here’s a boy thing! It equals rational thought cuz reasons. Here’s a girl thing that does the opposite!”
F.O.
I really *really* hope that your ‘female significant other’ (what are you, a Ferengi?) is a woman and not a girl. You said that having sexist ideas challenged will help you be rid of them faster; that’s one right there. Calling adult women ‘girls’ or ‘females’, when men are referred to as guys or men. Guy has an adult connotation… girl most certainly doesn’t.
You could have also simply said significant other, and then used the appropriate pronouns to indicate she is a woman, rather than going Ferengi on us.
@toska #58: I’m neither American nor female, she is both, so I default to trust her on this.
Which doesn’t mean I can’t trust you, but I’m trying to put the conflicting pieces of information together.
I’m trying to read her mind here, but I guess she was making an example of how culture has different expectations for the genders, and these expectations shape our cognitive development.
@Rowan vet-tech #59: The “female” part is the important one and I didn’t want to leave it to a pronoun.
I’d use “male” for men likewise if I wanted to stress the gender of those I’m talking about.
Is it that bad to use “female” and “male” for people? o_O
I used the word “girl” to stress that she was subjected to this kind of pressure since youth.
Also, I’m not a native speaker.
F.O.
Of course culture has different expectations for genders, and affects everybody in so many ways. But the example of Sports vs. Oprah is nonsensical when it comes to the topic of the post. How do sports encourage skepticism and rational thought (or even discourage woo at all)the way Oprah encourages woo? I can’t see any cultural connection between sports and atheism/skepticism/whathaveyou. If that is going to be your example of culture leading men toward atheism and women away, there has to be some kind of reasonable connection. Sports in the US actually tend to be heavily associated with conservative and religious folks (which I understand that you may not have known that if you are non-USAlien).
Not just the Four Horsemen, either, but the Three Definitely And One I’m Not Sure About Total Scumbag Misogynist Horsemen. The three noisy, condescending, frankly creepy ones alone made me loathe the whole New Atheist schtick, if they were representative, even before I’d seen their misogyny on blatant display.
cervantes @2:
People can be atheists without giving it any particular thought at all. It’s not evidence of being a thinky thinker.
paulhavlak @7
High five!
Second high five!
Teresa Fairchild @13
They miss out completely, then, since they’re wrong every time they open their damn mouths to pontificate about social issues.
rq @28
I read that as meaning women cop blame for stuff in a way men don’t, part of the added social pressures we face for stepping out of line. No idea if that interpretation’s correct, I also found Chengis Khan’s comment hard to understand.
vaiyt @32
THIS.
theoreticalgrrrl @50
That was lovely, thank you.
CaitieCat @51
I would SO love to see a picture of that. Especially if Mohammed and Jesus were kids too, looking guilty in the background. :D
If three of the four Horsemen are both highly visible and highly misogynous but you want more women to be outspoken atheists then I would suggest that you should shift towards quietly urging the surviving Horsemen to be less misogynous. Every time that you call them out in public with such vitriol you harden their positions and draw more attention to their views on women and away from what they have done and could do for atheism and secularism. The remaining three are not going away any time soon. We should all work towards getting the most value from their work in the hopes that this makes them a positive for all including women who might become the next wave of Horse-riders. No?
Oh, professor Dawkins, you brilliant man, could you please try to stop saying sexist bullshit? Pretty please with a cherry on top?
xoxo
… nice enough, Bea Essartu, or should I add some more arse licking to it?
I’m afraid I’m not sure how to make it more quiet, though.
Bea, “quietly urging” does. Not. Work. It’s like asking racists politely to stop being racist. Dawkins in particular has been asked, told, had things explained to him countless times, and he gets more misogynistic every day. He’s still whining and harbouring a grudge because Rebecca Watson dared use that terrible and vitriolic phrase, “Guys, don’t do that.” He’s telling women when we should and shouldn’t have abortions. He’s telling us what rapes we should care about, what sexual assault is trivial, what misogyny is real misogyny (ie. only when done by those dreadful Brown People Over There).
Telling women to “quietly urge” is totally counterproductive; all it does is make it easier for the men who despise us to not hear us at all.
What is your goal? I would assume it to be less misogyny from the highly visible atheists and more outspoken participation by women. If so then which is more likely to achieve this goal? Sarcasm and vitriol or gentle coaxing?
I’m not asking anyone to lick anyone anywhere. I’m saying something closer to the Serenity Prayer.
“When a sex is burdened with more responsibility than the other, they have to be naturally careful to not jump decisions and make conclusions. ”
Actually how I read this was men are burdened with more responsibility, therefore have to think more critically.
I hope I’m wrong, though, because that makes the comment even more insulting.
Oops. It took me so long to type that another comment appeared between mine and the one to which I was replying.
I was unaware that gentle attempts to influence Dawkins had been tried.
Madilane Muray O’Hare practically invented movement atheism, at least in the US. She was a big personality and pulled no punches. I’m seventy but remember her well. She got prayer and bible reading out of public schools in most states. (In the old slave states the law is generally ignored). Our local atheist meet-up was organized by women and generally meetings are better attended by women. The big names in atheism have decades of writings and followings in all parts of the English speaking world. I can’t say much about many other parts of the world but in Latin America atheism seems to always be associated with revolutionaries.
From my observation I would say that it is much easier for men to walk away from religion than women because families generally don’t mind as much if a son adopts humanism, but if a girl starts questioning the family faith then all hell breaks loose.
There seems to be a contingent of movement leaders who have some rather antique views on women, but that will change.
Why should anyone use “gentle” attempts on Dawkins anyway? Why should he be pandered to? Why are his hurt feels so important? He delights in insulting and demeaning those he perceives as his inferiors (anyone not a White Atheist Superior Dudely Dude). This sounds like a very gendered suggestion, Bea: the same old women must be nice and soft and gentle and polite, because otherwise we’re shrill harpies and that is Bad.
Being treated equally does not include being extra demure and making sure to remind men that they’re just so smart before we beg them to stop treating us like idiots and sexual objects. It just allows them to continue to treat us as subordinate.
Maybe this is water under the bridge if it has already been tried but my suggestion had nothing to do with whether Dawkins or anyone else deserves special treatment. I was trying to be practical. He is highly visible. It would be best if he were only a positive. So maybe do what it takes to make him a positive.
In a strange way I’m suggesting that one treat him as less than a person as opposed to a special person. One is overly nice to a vicious dog not because you think that it deserves special treatment but because you don’t want to be bit. Same sort of thing.
It would be best if he (and anyone else) weren’t worshiped as heroes, but rather be viewed as a person with flaws. Maybe then he would start to see himself as fallible and think maybe all of his prejudiced views aren’t necessarily true just because he holds them.
And this sounds like a positive dynamic to have with another person to you? Oh yes, let’s be super nice to Dawkins so he stops shitting on us. That’ll make atheism one big, happy family where women have to be extra super nice to powerful men to avoid getting bit.
This is why women don’t want to join the atheist movement. The expectation right there that we have to be extra nice to misogynists to avoid the backlash. Maybe they should be nice to us to avoid our backlash for a change, hm?
Heh – given Dawkins claims he’s being muzzled, the vicious dog comparison is apt in that respect. I only wish this mongrel was muzzled, metaphorically at least.
Buuut Dawkins likes to remind us constantly of what a great superior-brained rational thinky thinker he is, not caught up by those (ugh) emotions; he should damnwell be capable of hearing criticism without all this snapping and snarling and yapping and whining he goes in for.
Yeah, I know, I can dream. Suffice to say I’m not inclined to give him leeway in anything. If he were a dog, he’d have been taken to the pound by now.
Please keep in mind that women on average are much more offended by sarcasm than men. If you delete the bits about god the Serenity Prayer is some very good advice. Changing Dawkins may be impossible so maybe trying is a waste. But we can surely be nicer to each other.
I don’t know what to do with this
English is not my first language. I was trying to say two things about three people.
Bea Essartu #75
[citation needed]
Bea Essartu @ 63
I’m so fucking tired of this respectability politics horseshit. “If you want misogynists to stop treating you like shit, you should just BE the demure, deferential, subservient inferiors they expect you to be! I promise, they’ll pay attention to you just as soon as you stop addressing them as if you have a right to be heard!” Shut the fuck up Bea.
Bea, I’ll say this plainly:
FUCK YOU.
You want me to be nice to men who think that me being a woman makes me less able to do such things as critical thinking? FUCK NO.
Also, see the words after my name? When I’m around an aggressive dog I don’t act extra nice to it (that doesn’t work at all, by the by unless the dog is FEAR-aggressive) I get a leash, a muzzle, and sedatives and I wrangle it to the ground, pop it in the butt with the drugs and get on with my day. And that’s what we’re doing when we don’t let these sexist men and women get away with the shit they’re saying.
BEING NICE DOES NOT WORK.
If you are asking for a published paper then I don’t have one and don’t know if any do or don’t exist. But this is something that I have discussed many times with many people and it seems to be true. Women are often very hurt when sarcasm is directed at them while men often don’t seem to care or at least they claim that it doesn’t bother them much. So if the goal is to encourage more women to be outspoken atheists I would hope that we could all keep the sarcasm to a minimum.
Bea, will you please read the comments directed repeatedly at you: being nice does not work. It doesn’t stop misogynists, racists or any other sort of bigots. These men are benefitting from the status quo; they see nothing in it for them if women are equal, only a loss of their own power and status. They have no reason to listen to the oppressed class – that’s women – asking them nicely to let us be full human beings. The whole history of feminism shows this.
Bea Essartu #81
OK … english as a second language
Do you know what ‘sarcasm’ is in English?
(please note that I managed to copy/paste both your nym and the comment number)
Bea, please stop and listen to what people are saying and realise that they understand the situation far better than you do.
Your @81 is pretty much exactly what Sam Harris said about the “critical posture”. It’s utter bullshit, all you have to do is look at the ridiculously oversensitive responses prominent male atheists have to mild criticism. Right now you’re being part of the problem.
Bea,
I would like to point out that most of the people you are conversing with right now are women.
Bea @ 81
And yet it’s the all the Thinky McDudebros who squawk about thought police and witch hunts and lynch mobs and ridiculous paranoia and political correctness run amok, etc. etc. when any criticism at all is directed at them. It’s always men who loudly and at great length explain how silenced they are whenever a woman makes the slightest complaint. But yes, definitely women are so much more easily wounded than men.
@toska #61
The way I see it, sports do not lead to skepticism, but allow it.
Oprah actively fosters woo.
You know what? I’ll go through the comments with her so I’ll get a better idea of what she means, it’s entirely possible that I’m making a huge confusion.
Beatrice @85
I’m not! I’m a cat!
/carry-over from WHTM where trolls often think we’re our gravatars
As for sarcasm: I react a damn sight better to that than men being condescending fuckers a la Dawkins, ‘cos I’m good at sarcasm and I’ll give them a broadside right back.
I want to stick up for sarcasm. It’s a skill. Sometimes it can be used to tread that fine line – when challenging bad behaviour or dodgy thinking – between being so polite that no one takes any notice of you and being so loudly confrontational that you are dismissed as an hysterical bitch.
In my experience men cope with it less well than women. Those women who work in previously male-dominated professions or who find themselves saddled with a male top level of management have nerves of steel. They have to in order to survive.
Men who are used to being right by default – that would include Harris, Dawkins but others too – say they can’t talk to women because we are too emotional. Yet when women try to talk to them – sometimes seriously, sometimes by being quick on the draw on, say, Twitter – what do we get? Temper tantrums, more abuse, refusal to share a platform, building ever higher walls around themselves, asserting their natural wisdom because of some status as thinky leader to which they have appointed themselves.
Sarcasm can be very useful – it releases some of the stress of being patronised, ignored yet again, having ones behaviour dictated – and it leaves them just a little bewildered while they work out just how rude this person was to them.
Years ago, Bea, a prominent woman atheist told a story on video, calmly and with great care – the odd raised eyebrow but no malice, no naming of names, just a true story. One of these gentlemen – I use the term loosely – took exception to the final sentence of her exposition, just four words, and has been using it as an excuse for his bad behaviour ever since.
When people claim intellectual superiority and come pretty close to demanding deference then sarcasm is a wonderful thing.
Bea, that’s nonsense…it really is. As others are correctly pointing out it’s not a sensitivity to sarcasm that’s making women feel unwelcomed in the atheist movement, and your generalization about what women’s reactions to sarcasm are is an unfounded assertion.
By the way, anecdotically, i personally learned sarcasm from women, chief among them a young vasque woman who could sarcasm you to death. Watching her perform was trully a work of art xD
scienceavenger
So you talked to women, didn’t like their answers, decided to dismiss them snd make up your own bullshit. Yeah, sounds about right…
scienceavenger
Define “informative.”
No. Harris and Dawkins have both made absolutely clear that they are completely unwilling to reconsider their sexism, or for that matter their other bigotries. Gentle coaxing will just further inflate their already humungous egos.
@ #65 2kittehs
Exactly this.
It is nothing but tone/concern trolling, just as we see from those calling for Ferguson protesters to get off the streets and be nice, and from people telling climate scientists to stop being such “alarmists.” It is another sneaky, faux-reasonable attempt to tell people to STFU and go away, and those who engage in it should be scorned.
I’m interested in the question as to whether the women commenters here are members of any of the atheist/humanist organizations. Because that’s what the OP is about, right? Why there is a gender imbalance in “movement atheism”.
Do you belong to any of these groups? Which ones? What prompted you to join? Has membership changed your life appreciably? Did you gain any personal, local benefits from joining? If not, what benefits do you get, if any?
And then, as a corollary — do you attend the conferences? Why or why not?
And finally, what can “movement atheism” do to improve and make itself more attractive to women? Setting aside for the moment all of the other groups that “movement atheism” need to improve its outreach to. Just focusing on the single question of women in “movement atheism”.
Shutting up and listening.
I am a member of several atheist and secular organizations. I joined in the hopes of reducing the influence of religion on the non-religious because this has hurt me and many others I know especially women. I attend political events where the public is allowed to ask questions and I am an escort at a clinic almost every weekend for the last ten years. I have never attended an atheist conference but have thought about doing because several of my friends go every year. They said I should get twitter and read freethoughtblogs. If what it means to be an outspoken atheist woman is to be able to say fuck you to people who are trying to help and you don’t really know then I don’t want to join. I said things like that very often when I was religious and that is something I want to move away from. I don’t believe you when you say that you have tried to change Dawkins by gentle urging. I have spent the day reading what you have said to him. You are not helping. You have made me sad and angry.
Bea Essartu @ 96
Heavens to Betsy!
Dawkins is emphatically NOT trying to help. He is a hindrance. People have definitely tried to reason with him politely, and failed. PZ, among others, gave him plenty of opportunities, and even turned a bit of a blind eye to what was going on at first (as most of us have, i think, until it became too much to excuse). Dawkins has had the criticisms to his awful, sexist position, explained calmly, politely and at length…he doesn’t care. He has made this abundantly clear. Continuing to pretend that gently tapping him in the shoulder and going “ahem, excuse sir, are you sure you wouldn’t want to clarify or modify your statement, it seems a bit….well…dismissive of women….” is going to lead to any results is ridiculous. After his surreal recent comments where he doubled down on his sexism, indulged in weapons grade hypocrisy and once again used extreme hyperbole as an emotional gaslighter, the only option is to oppose his comments aggressively. He deserves a “fuck you” and a lot more, he has earned it.
Dawkins is the one who not only is not helping, but is actively feeding and perpetuating the problem.
Bea Essartu
That is religious thinking, right there. Evidence suggests you are quite wrong.
@Bea Essartu
This leads me to believe that you are unaware of the history. This has been going on for years. Even as recently as this summer, Ophelia Benson spoke to him “gently” about how harmful his statements and behaviour have been. He paid lip service and came out with a joint statement, but almost immediately turned about face and went back to saying harmful, anti-feminist things. He is not a friend to women. He thinks equality in law is all that’s necessary so any movement to address cultural and social sexism is overwrought and adopting victimhood for ulterior motives. He also thinks that Western women ought to stay silent because (according to his own judgement) women in Islamic theocracies suffer worse. He will continue to say so in public no matter how nice people are when opposing these ideas, because these are his ideas. He really believes all that and doesn’t want to change his mind.
Ibis3
Yes, anyone who says like Richard Dawkins did is not my friend, and I don’t feel even a little bit guilty if his feelings get hurt when he’s criticized for it, and I’m not going to stroke his ego and beg him to reconsider in the hopes that it will turn him into a real ally.
Why do you tell me about Ophelia Benson when I was talking to you instead of her? I would say something different if I were talking to her. And why do you say that Dawkins is not TRYING to help? Have you talked to him about his goals? I have and I know that he is TRYING to help women. There is large disagreement on whether he is success but that is a different question.
@Kevin Kehres #95
Thank you for asking!
I joined a local atheists group several years ago. I was looking for like-minded people: skeptical, curious free-thinkers who weren’t evil, lol. I thought, if someone is an atheist surely they approach all areas of their life with the same level of intellectual honesty, and I wanted to expand my friendship group. I only lasted a month.
This group had an online message board, and one of the members posted something about how he really wanted an atheist girlfriend, but was puzzled by why there weren’t more women in the group. Where were all the cute atheists women, he wondered, and how can he find them?
Another member piped up that in his experience most women are too stupid to be atheists, so his solution was to fuck rando non-atheist women and then find real companionship with other atheist men. (Of course, this was a while ago, so I’m paraphrasing, but the level of crassness and hatefulness is accurate–actually I’m probably being kind.)
The real problem I had with this was the response from the other members. One guy gently chided the asshole commenter, but mostly there was crickets. That’s all I needed to know and I deactivated my membership that day.
I thought about responding and mentioning the fact that EVERY SINGLE ONE of my women friends are atheists, and furthermore, they all happen to be hot–but I simply couldn’t be bothered to even do that. Because I am a women I face so many battles and situations where men try to steal from me (my dignity, my time, my money), that there is no way in hell that I’m going to waste my discretionary time in social environments which are toxic to women. A person can only take so much, and my free time is when I should do things to lift me up, not further drag me down. Major props to the women who are willing to engage with people like Dawkins in any way. Personally, I’m happy to pretend that he doesn’t even exist.
But, guess what? It wasn’t even the misogyny that really turned me off. It was the fact that this man was so clearly willing to believe in fairly tales (in this case the fairy tale that women are inherently stupider than men, and whose only real value is as fuck vessels). So he wasn’t skeptical, or curious, or a free-thinker. He was just a dum-dum who happened to not believe in God. Big deal. It is simply impossible for me to respect people like that as intellectuals (or as decent human beings). How can you have grown-up conversations with people like that?
Pharyngula has been a revelation to me, and I’m happy to be here. If the IRL atheist group near me were like Pharyngula (or any of the other Free Thought blogs I’ve been reading) then I would be there in a flash.
Bea Essartu
Who are you talking to?
Bea Essartu @ 102
Like fuck it’s a different question. Trying is worthless if what you’re doing is not actually helping. I think that when Richard Dawkins says he’s trying to help women, he’s fucking lying. He cares about women only insofar as he can use their stories as a cudgel against religion. I trust Richard Dawkins as far as I could throw him.
Bea Essartu @102
What exactly has Dawkins done? He whines about First World women objecting to sexism and outright misogyny because that supposedly distracts from the problems of Islamic women. But all I’ve seen him do is whining. Granted, he’s an excellent whiner with lots of practice but whining doesn’t help either Third World Islamic women, First World women, or any other women.
Kevin Kehres, soporificat’s experience could be very slightly edited to describe three different attempts I’ve made to join three different atheist groups. Flat-out stupid misogyny defended because “he’s really not a bad guy once you know him!” and “well, shrug, freeze peach, ya know?” Anyone remotely “datable” hit on like a piñata (not me, I was big and athletic, and am now fat and old, but I considered that a feature, not a bug) . Toxic masculinity (“dude, don’t be a pussy!”). Complete ignorance of intersectionality.
If it wasn’t about debunking astrology or making sure city council meetings don’t start with a prayer, none of these groups were at all interested. Mention that Catholic priests are reading anti-gay sermons from the pulpit ahead of an important vote on queer rights? “What’s that got to do with us, WE’RE not fags, haha amirite?” Try to talk about disrupting a Christianist group picketing a hospital for doing abortions? Good luck getting it discussed, let alone expecting anyone to turn up. And the laughter when no one had a single word to say when it is brought up, that helped too.
In a word, privilege. Air freighted down with such unthinking privilege that it felt hard to breathe.
So I gave up on organised atheism, until I found FTB around the time of that shameful response to Rebecca Watson from Mr. Important Thinkyleader and his twitter-dispatched swarm of flying turdflingers.
Now I just keep my swweeet sweet brain at home, and hang out with atheists here, who are mostly decent folk.
This is to Seven of Nine: Do you truly make no distinction between the goals of a person and the effects of their actions? Does this also go for your self? Your goal is to hurt me? Why?
This should end well.
Bea Essartu @108
How did Seven of Mine (you gave her name incorrectly in your post) show a goal to hurt you? Is your ego so fragile that someone disagreeing with you is hurtful? Or is it that you have no rebuttal to her post so instead you’re doing a Dawkins imitation by whining about people being mean to poor, misunderstood you?
Kevin Kehres @95 – closest I’ve come to any organisation (I’m not into joining groups other than online) was when I briefly subscribed to the Australian Sceptics’ magazine about ten years ago, after reading one good issue. I dropped the subscription very soon, because far too often it read like nothing but an exercise in sneering at anyone and everyone not a hardline anti-theist. No, I’m not doing a Bea here and saying they should have been Nice!!! – I’m simply saying the magazine, and the group, was not for me. This was when I was agnostic bordering on atheist, too.
Bea remember these important words, even I’d I believed that Dawkins intends to help women: “Intent is not Magic”
Blasted autocorrect if I believed
At this point, I’m pretty much ready to conclude that Bea is just a disingenuous troll.
Kevin Kehres
Over the past few years I’ve occasionally considered going to a meeting or joining a group, but every time I’ve been presented with how terribly misogynist the wider community is and I withdraw from even contemplating it for a while. After this latest round of sexist crap, I’ve decided I’m not going to bother ever. I’d rather spend my resources volunteering for social justice causes or political candidates/party in my local area. If I ever go to a conference, it will be to meet some FTBers (either bloggers or commenters) in person, but I’m not likely to go out of my way or spend a lot of money to go to one. At one point I considered trying to start a blogging career on atheist (plus) issues, but given what Jen went through I decided I wouldn’t want to put up with whatever backlash might come my way. I just finished reading Why Are You Atheists So Angry? and it was…off-putting in a way that wouldn’t have been the case had I read it when I first bought it (I was firmly in the firebrand camp when the first Deep Rift occurred). Now it seems almost inappropriate. To be all rah rah getting rid of religion is the most (or even *very*) important thing, when most of the
peoplemen in prominent positions in atheist activism are rapists or rape apologists or misogynists or racists or libertarian assholes (or a combination of the above)–it just makes me a little nauseated. (Through no fault of Greta Christina’s of course.) Frankly, there are a lot of religious people who are doing far more good in the world and far less harm than many of the self-identified atheists, and I’d rather be working with them than trying to persuade them that gods are imaginary.Bea @102:
I’ve just read the thread and I think one of your problems is that you’ve jumped into a discussion that didn’t begin when PZ hit “submit” on this post. Dawkins’ bad behavior, his shaming of women, his apologetics for Rape Culture, his dismissal of the concerns of women who face sexism and misogyny below a certain threshold (i.e. below acid attacks)… this has been going on for years. People have tried talking to him (Ophelia Benson is one person that has tried to talk to him, which is why her name was mentioned; each individual here doesn’t have to have spoken directly to RD for him to have gotten the message that he’s said some horrible shit). Here at Pharyngula when he first posted his ‘Dear Muslima’ comment. On Twitter over the years. On his own blog. He’s had people talk to him privately and publicly. He’s had people write blog posts about him. He’s had ample opportunity to amend his ways and he continues to NOT do that. He continues to shit on women. No, this doesn’t mean that every single thing he says and every single thing he does is dedicated to making the lives of women horrible. No, this doesn’t mean that Dawkins doesn’t speak up for women’s rights. It means that this is a nuanced view of Richard Dawkins that looks at the totality of what the man says and does (with regard to feminism) and realizes that his words and actions cause more harm than good. He is not good for the atheist movement. He is not helping women. He continues to engage in behavior that treats women as second class citizens without the rights of men. If you aren’t aware of this, you need to go read up on this, instead of commenting out of ignorance.
Also this:
Is nothing more than arguing that intent should matter. Intent isn’t magic. We don’t know and cannot know what someone intends when they say or do something. All we can judge them by is what they say and what they do. When Dawkins dismisses the concerns of women who face sexism just because it’s not at the level he thinks warrants complaining, he’s not being helpful to women. No matter what he says. No matter what his intent is.
If I step on your toe, and you say “Ouch! Watch where you’re stepping asshole!”, me responding with “That wasn’t my intent” doesn’t magically make your toe un-stepped on. I may not have intended to hurt you, but I did so nonetheless.
We cannot judge people by their intent bc we’ll never truly know what they intend. But we can judge people by their words (and just as-if not more-importantly, their actions).
I strongly suggest you stop commenting and read more on Richard Dawkins and why many people dislike him. You’re speaking from a position of profound ignorance, and this being a rude blog…if you continue speaking from that position of ignorance, people are not going to continue being nice to you.
As for your closing sentence…huh?
@Bea Essartu
Why should it matter who went to Dawkins with the gentle urgings? If they failed, they failed.
I didn’t say he is not TRYING. I don’t really care. What I care about is what he is DOING.
Do you know who else is TRYING to help women? Michael & Debi Pearl. Phyllis Schlafly. The Catholic Church. Boko Haram.
@Bea Essartu
Tony! #115:
And in this case, the stepper is responding with “I don’t care about your feet. Your toes are of zero importance. If I step on them, it’s because they are in the way of what I’m trying to do, so quit whining and drawing attention to yourself. My patience is wearing thin.” No amount of gentle urging has moved him from that position one iota. His intent is not in fact what you’re (Bea) saying it is, even if intent were a bit magic.
get off my foot
http://freethoughtblogs.com/cuttlefish/2012/10/12/ouch/
From Ibis3 #117
“And besides, how dare you complain. Don’t you know some people have had their feet cut clean off? You can just shut up and deal with my stomps on your toes.”
Dawkins supports women in order to make religion look bad. Dawkins supports Muslim women in order to make feminists look bad.
@Bea Essartu, 97:
I’ve talked to many religious people, I’m related to many, and I was one. To a person they’ve told me they’re TRYING to help. That’s what I would have told you. I don’t doubt if you’d gently asked, the religious who’d hurt you would have told you that as well. Do you truly make no distinction between the goals of a person and the effects of their actions?
Frankly, there’s no reason to bother with organized atheism if you think wishes and horses are equally good for a ride.
@soporificat @103 and CaitieCat @107, thanks for sharing your experiences. (Sorry if I’ve missed others.)
@chigau 109:
It’s a real, “Hold my beer and watch this!” moment.
My #120
That should read “non-Muslim feminists look bad”.
@saad, 120:
Brilliant. Just brilliant. That needs to be on a T-shirt.
@122, saad: With whatever edits you see fit, of course. Comments in transit.
Ibis3 @114
QFT.
toska @119 – just what I was going to say. ::nods::
I agree that intent isn’t magical and never said that it was. I just also don’t think that intent is irrelevant especially when judging people. And I clearly am not alone in believing this because many of the comments here include a guess about Dawkins’ reasons for doing things. Many of us seem to believe that motives matter. It does hurt more when someone steps on my toes on purpose.
Bea Essartu,
Dawkins is the white person MLK talks about in his letter from a Birmingham jail. Somebody who always finds an excuse to not move society forward, but rather maintain the status quo, while sympathizing with the blight of those less privileged. His intentions are to maintain the status quo. He will pay lip service to progress, while making sure none occurs. That is why he isn’t thought well of here.
Bea, what the hell makes you think Dawkins has any good intentions to women at all?
He tells women it’s immoral not to abort a pregnancy if the fetus has Downs. That’s not supporting women, that’s denying us bodily autonomy and life choices.
He tells women, in a nutshell, that if they haven’t been mutilated, they have no business complaining about any form of misogyny, from unequal pay levels to rape.
He doesn’t give a shit about victims of sexual abuse, including children. He writes off abuse as less awful than having a religious upbringing, and has dismissed victims of clerical abuse by saying they can get nice fat payouts.
Richard Dawkins doesn’t give a flying fuck for anyone not just like himself. It goes beyond lack of empathy. He’s a rabid bigot. Claiming he’s tryyyyyying to help is bullshit. He’s not. He’s an enemy.
To answer Kevin @95,
I looked into joining a local atheist group when I first deconverted and was feeling quite firebrandy. There’s only one group in my area, and I contacted them, but I was turned off by their apparent focus on doing nothing but post Hitchens memes on their public facebook page and telling each other how smart they are for being atheists. I don’t know if there were any women in the group (I didn’t see any, but I didn’t invest too much time into checking them out, so there could have been some who just did not attend the meeting I went to), but I had really wanted to join a group that was really doing something to combat the harm that religion does to real people, and they weren’t it.
Intersectionality is pretty key for me, and if there was a group in my area like FTB, I’d join in a heartbeat. Knowing what I do now, I don’t think a group that is organized under the atheist banner is likely to be one for me. The biggest influence on my leaving religion was reading the bible and seeing how much it conflicted with my ideas about LGBTQ people and women and race, and seeing how little it actually intersected with my (already quite humanistic) beliefs on morality.
I haven’t gone to conventions either. I was a broke college student when I deconverted and didn’t have the resources, but I wanted to go to a conventions when I was more financially stable. Then I found out about the Deep Rifts through online communities, and I think I’d prefer to stay away from the big cons. I think I would enjoy going to one of the more progressive cons, like Skepticon, so maybe someday.
Firebrandy sounds like a helluva dangerous drink. :)
@Bea
The thing is, women have been telling Dawkins for at least 4 years “You’re standing on my toes; get off.” And every single time, he’s told women that they’re being irrational to criticize him. Once you’ve told someone at length multiple times how they are hurting women’s issues, and he keeps refusing to listen, it is pretty safe to assume that he doesn’t actually care whether he’s hurting you or not. He refuses to even consider that he might be wrong or make any attempt to change his toxic behavior. In fact, he generally responds by escalating the amount of sexist statements he puts out there.
He does not listen to women when they tell him to get off their toes.
2kittehs
As soon as I typed “Firebrandy,” it made me think of fireball whiskey. ;)
Bea,
Does it matter if Dawkins actually hates women, is too proud to admit he was wrong, or is so senile he has forgotten what certain words mean. I really don’t give a shit about his intentions, he has a large platform and he is causing harm. He is been loving on Hoff Summers for christ sake, he has lost any credibility he may have had about social justice issues. It started with Dear Muslima, which many of us didn’t believe was actually him at the time, and he has kept digging since.
Per HappyNat @133,
Yes. Bea, when well intentioned people (especially those with a large platform) are informed that they are causing harm, they apologize and change their behavior. Dawkins has done the opposite. He prefers to wail about how unfair it is whenever he gets criticized and then double down on his harmful statements.
toska @ 119
“It’s your fault for having such tiny feet in the first place. If they were larger, I would notice them and wouldn’t step on them.”
“But my feet are large.”
“Precisely. They’re so big they get in the way, and I had no option but to step on them.”
Bea.
Please stop talking nonsense.
1. Where in the Big Book of How to be an Atheist does it say that to be an atheist you have to join lots of organisations in order to be qualify? You have seen ample explanation above of the demerits of atheist organisations and atheist meetings as they currently exist.
I live in a country where being an atheist is no big deal. So I don’t need a badge to prove it and if I mention it, again, it’s no big deal. Of our three largest political parties two of the leaders are declared atheists, the third is a nominal Christian but one who does not seem to have read the book. So I support a number of organisations which concentrate on a secularist approach to civic life and once in a while I go to a meeting but, quite honestly, through both work and activism I’ve had enough meetings to last me the rest of my life so I only go to (or organise) those few which have a particular appeal.
2. Dawkins does offer some support to some women. That’s not in question. The problem is how he does it. He picks the person or group, he decides what is good for them and he tends to expect to be beyond criticism just because once in a while he deigns to notice something. And in his spare time he likes to pick favourites, whom he thinks should have all the attention and all the praise. He is quite willing to turn the perfectly normal disagreements between women or between atheists into major drama – possibly for his own glorification.
I have never once heard a first-person account of him quietly and carefully asking a woman what would be helpful and then listening to the answer.
3. Why the hell should we not mention Ophelia Benson? She’s a fellow freethought blogger. To some of us she is a friend, to others a regular stop in our browsing of the internet. After PZ and several others had tried and tried hard, Ophelia was probably the best woman to try to reach a de-escalation agreement with Dawkins. She’s highly intelligent, better read than Dawkins in key areas and definitely not a screaming harpy. As you saw, an agreement was made – the most recent record we have of such an attempt – and promptly broken. How dare you tell us to be nicer, try harder? How dare you decide whether were allowed to mention that?
4. Atheism encompasses many strands of thought, many activities, many styles and many different personalities. Most of the time we rub along quite successfully. Sometimes we have a discussion and sometimes we have a row. So?
If the people on Pharyngula tend to resist authoritarianism and have a sharp eye for cultural baggage from a previous phase of life – we all have that – and to jump on sloppy thinking, well, that’s just who we are. Most but not all here are still atheists and there is no initiation rite, no compulsory attendance at anything, no “right” way of doing it. We just are.
toska,
And now I want some fireball whiskey, damn you.
If you really believe these things about Dawkins including that you can not make him change and also believe that women see him as representative of outspoken atheists then I can understand what you are saying and why this is relevant to the question. It would seem to me that gives you only two choices — to make Dawkins disappear or stop drawing attention to the views that you believe that he has.
He is not going to disappear.
So why are you drawing attention to his view if you want more women outspoken atheists?
Dawkins is 73 years old.
He’ll be going away.
and Bea, you are trolling
@Bea Essartu #138
Actually, as someone who was repelled by movement atheism, the criticism of Dawkins and his pals is a positive development. Silence is read as assent, and thus it is crucial that those who vigorously disagree with him speak up as loudly as possible, otherwise women such as myself will continue to believe that he speaks for most atheists.
Drawing attention to the disagreement with him (and others of his type) is critical to attract more women.
Bea,
We are criticizing his harmful views and saying, “This is not what we stand for. Richard Dawkins’ views on women do not represent atheism.” We are carving out a community where women can be atheists and don’t have to put up with Dawkins’ views. Mainstream atheism is full of fanboys who repeat the misogynistic views, and we don’t want to be associated with them just because of our atheism, so we are demonstrating that there is another way. Why do you have a problem with us doing that?
The way to defeat bad ideas is to challenge them and criticize them. It’s what Dawkins does to creationists. Why aren’t you telling him not to talk about creationism because it might draw more attention to it?
Bea Essartu @
Because he and his fanbase are one of the current problems that all us outspoken women atheists are dealing with.
Perhaps you could persuade Dawkins to stop drawing attention to himself?
Bea Essartu
How about “denounce Dawkins’s sexist attitudes so that other people can see not all atheists subscribe to them“? Isn’t it contradictory to say that you want more outspoken women in the atheist community if keep urging them to shut up when they speak out against sexism?
Besides, I’m not sure where this fixation with Dawkins comes from. He isn’t the untouchable leader of atheism, nor does the universe revolve around his navel. Most people in the world don’t even know who that guy is.
fixing it for me @143
It shows there are alternatives, like PZ Myers and Pharyngula, where we do know how to shut the fuck up and listen to women, and act on what we hear. Hence, women feel comfortable here.
@Bea Essartu, #138:
What? Are you daft?
We have lots of choices. The fact that you can only imagine 2 is telling only in regards to the paucity of your creative brainpower. It is certainly not determinative of the ultimate future results of the activist/educational efforts of people on this thread or anywhere else.
I hear the sad, sad whistle of another Deflating Dawkins Defender. Bea, tell me, why are you so enamoured of the Old White Dick? He and his attitudes belong in the past.
sez bea essartu@138: “So why are you drawing attention to [Dawkins’] view if you want more women outspoken atheists?”
Quite true, bea. Dawkins’ critics must be very careful indeed to avoid giving the oxygen of publicity to Dawkins’ hateful views. After all, it’s not like Dawkins himself broadcasts his views via Twitter to a low-seven-digits number of followers…
Oh. Wait. It’s exactly and precisely like that, because Dawkins has, and does, and continues to, broadcast his views via Twitter to a low-seven-digits number of followers.
And the man who wrote that inane ‘Dear Muslima’ screed doesn’t see anything… off… about saying how ‘muzzled’ he feels, when he’s talking to interviewers as part of the publicity blitz for his latest bestselling book.
Yyyyyeeeaah. Dawkins’ critics are seriously in danger of introducing the man’s hateful views to an audience that would otherwise never ever ever have been exposed to said views, guaranteed. Uh-huh. Yep. Sure. You betcha. Tell me, bea: Are you
(a) stupid
(b) brain-damaged
(c) deluded-to-insane
(d) far too ignorant for your views to be worth paying any attention to
(e) yet another fucking disingenuous troll
(f) more than one of the above?
Bea Essartu @ 108
Until and unless you fucking stop the thing that’s hurting me? I give exactly zero shits why you’re doing it. If you stop as soon as its brought to your attention, maybe I feel more charitably toward you once you explain the situation. This shit with Dawkins? It’s been years now. YEARS, Bea. He’s made one or two very begrudging apologies which showed little understanding of what the objections were to what he’d said. And then was right back to his hurtful anti-feminist shitwittery within days. He’s been informed that he’s hurting people and his response has been to mock and cast himself as the victim of witch hunts and lynch mobs and thought police. I’m done ascribing good intentions to him. People who care about whether they’re hurting others SHUT THE FUCK UP until they understand things better. They don’t assume that others are unreasonable and keep doing the same shit.
If this “your goal is to hurt me” is in reference to your comment above that we’d all made you sad and angry by failing to quietly take Dawkins’ punches and be fucking grateful for the fact that he meant well, I give no shits about that either because you have no right to ask that of me.
Bea Essartu @ 138
This is a false dichotomy. We can also rebut his bullshit, and yours, so that others who have a shred of empathy and are looking on can learn the counterarguments.
Also on the subject of do I join atheist organizations and why or why not:
I don’t actually give a rat’s fart about atheism, movement or otherwise, to be completely honest. I’m of the opinion that abandonment of religion is a sort of natural side effect of an educated and well-cared-for society. I think separation of church and state is important but that atheism is actually irrelevant to it. To the extent that religion causes bigoted attitudes, excising it from one’s life clearly doesn’t eliminate those attitudes and being religious doesn’t actually prevent anyone from being socially conscious. What matters is empathy and knowledge, not whether you believe in gods. I think it’s far more productive to work towards the goal of education, to insist that our governments operate based on demonstrable fact and that they act to protect all the citizenry and not just a privileged few.
toska – I’m afraid to even look up what fireball whiskey is! (Total non-drinker here.) O_O
Bea @138
Bull. Shit. Now you’re suggesting a “don’t feed the trolls” approach, which has also been proven not to work. It’s also implicitly suggesting that women will join movement atheism and not leave if they don’t know beforehand what fucking rapists and rape-apologist misgoynist pieces of shit Dawkins, Shermer, Grothe, Harris, etc, etc, ad nauseum, are. How goddamn stupid do you think women are? Why do you think we should STFU about the disgusting behaviour and attitudes of men who like to pretend they’re humanists when they discount the humanity of half the species?
You’re trotting out the same fuckwitted, woman-hating shit that all the Dawkins fanboys do: women must shut up, women must not spoil the great and holy MovementAtheism by being expected to be treated as human beings, shut up and make the Great Men sandwiches or suck their cocks or whatever the price of admission to the clubhouse is today.
There is nothing about that sort of atheism to make it worth taking part in if one’s not a white straight male who despises everyone else. Have you even noticed how many women here have found they get more social support, more networks, more decent behaviour, from church groups, despite disagreeing with them on any number of social or political issues? What support, practical or moral, do these mighty white dudebros offer anyone outside their little cliques? Precious fucking little.
Lofty @147
Oh my, I needed that. I’m breathless laughing here. :D
Seven of Mine @150 – ::applause:: for your whole comment there.
cubist, 148
Is it really necessary to be that ableist? Jesus fucking christ.
Seven of Mine @150,
I’ve come to feel the same exact way. When I first left the religion I was raised in, I had one of those “My whole life was a lie!” moments, and I was more interested in atheism itself. Over the last year, that’s totally gone, and it’s partially because of how terrible many of the atheist “thought leaders” are, but it’s also because I really do care about social justice and making the world better, and 90% of my meatspace friends and acquaintances who feel the same way are religious, and that’s totally fine. I’ve even talked some social justice into my fundie grandmother. My atheist acquaintances are all white men who really don’t give a shit about equality. Oh, they’ll say they do, but well, you know how false allies are, so I probably don’t need to elaborate.
2kittehs @151
I am also a non drinker. I’ve never actually had fireball whiskey, but I’m told it is whiskey with lots of cinnamon.
re: joining atheist organizations
I joined an organization, even attended one meeting. It was a new organization, a tiny group of people looking to do big things. I’m not really comfortable or able to become fast friends with strangers, so it was a big thing for me to even go to that single meeting and I was too uncomfortable to continue afterwards. I didn’t feel like I could do anything useful, so I decided to fade into the background, limit my contibutions to following the online conversations and maybe joining if I had something to add.
So mostly, it was my own issues that were the problem not people there.
I don’t even mention casual sexism as reason for not attending, because it’s just something I expect from people. I am always disappointed when I encounter it, but mostly resigned.
Why I stopped checking the group conversations? well, it seems that at some point casual sexism and homophobic slurs are nough to put me off things and also, I don’t remember the details any more, but I saw differences in our opinions about issues like abortion which didn’t sit well with me (not against abortion, but usual wankage about responsibilites and babiez).
And really, there is only so much hero-worship one can take (re Hitchens, Dawkins and the usual crowd)
I would still support atheist organizations working towards eliminating, for example, religious education in schools, but when it comes to other vague organized “fighting against religion”, I agree with Seven of Mine.
Bea,
Ignoring the trolls is a failed strategy anyway, but it is especially difficult to avoid a malicious troll with a large audience and a big golden platform they made him.
Silence is as good as approval.
toska @153 – oh, so that’s what it is! What an odd combination. I’ve tasted whiskey in Bailey’s Irish Cream and thoroughly disliked the alcohol taste and smell – talk about spoiling a good drink. Now cimmamon in hot chocolate, that’d be the drink for me. :)
I read a Twitter exchange yesterday. A woman trying to claim the hashtag #AllLivesMatter to be better than #BlackLivesMatter retreated, unable to defend against a single challenge of context (current or historical) or explanation of minority erasure.
She then tweeted (without an @), “The Lord knows my heart,” and I can hardly describe the anger I felt. What a cowardly, supercilious, undebatable canard. I’ve never seen that sentence used until someone has thoroughly fucked up trying to explain that no harm was caused rather than acknowledging that they have caused harm. (My mother stopped saying it after she tried to talk me out of divorcing my emotionally abusive ex, his behavior during that process sparking him to expose his doing it rather than keeping it private. Because she *meant* well, she thought I should ignore that she’d caused me more pain.)
Dawkins, while he’d never accept “The Lord knows my heart,” uses the Vulcan stance virtually that same way, with his “Go away and learn to think” and retweeting buddies saying that his superior logic and intentions are being clearly misunderstood. Screw Richard Dawkins if we can’t say “intent is not magic” when he’s doing the secular version of “The Lord knows my heart.”
One can also see his dismissal of women in the way he tweeted about #shirtstorm, claiming “no true feminist” was up in arms about it. He deleted that tweet because Carolyn Porco, the Director of the Cassini Imaging Central Laboratory for Operations, made it plain that her stance was entirely on the opposite side. He stirred the shit until he’d have to defend it against a prominent woman planetologist, his words in black and white accompanied by the ignorantly abusive things his lickspittles were already starting to say. But he only spoke up for her, still adding that Matt Taylor didn’t “deserve the criticism;” so there was nothing there to stop the comments. Page after page replying to his 15 Nov tweet about the deletion, and not ONE of those disagreeing with her show a smidgen of knowledge that she was a successful, award-winning, and highly regarded woman in virtually the same field of STEM as Taylor. Days later he’s retweeting “Feminists hate @RichardDawkins because he supports real equality and real science, not post-modernist tripe.”
Only hours ago, a Christina Rad video was posted to his website. It’s title? “Comet Landing causes #Shirtstorm,” a both-sides mishmash that includes an argument of the “c’mon, scientists aren’t socially adept, the poor big-headed nerds” variety.
TL;DR: Dawkins on feminism? *spit*
-Ouch, you stepped on my foot-
-No, i didn’t-
-Yes, you are still doing it, what’s the matter with you?-
-You don’t understand because you are being irrational, what i mean by stepping on your foot is actually to step on your other foot-
-I’m not being irrational, you ARE stepping on my foot, get off! Aaaargh, what the fuck? Why are you stepping on both my feet now?-
-You are misunderstanding and misrepresenting my stepping on your feet, i’m actually massaging them-
-Fuck off! Seriously, fuck off right now, this is not ok!-
-Woah! What’s with the attitude? Do you like screaming or something? This is not something you should be complaining about, there are people who are getting stepped on their faces, you know? I think you are making a big deal out of this because you like the drama-
-Oh, you fucking arsehole, how dare you? Not only are you stepping on my feet, causing actual harm, but you are actually telling me i should shut up and not complain because it bothers you to have people complain that you are harming them? Are you seriously this obtuse, or just evil?-
-Ok, ok, i think i understand, your feet were on the way and i didn’t mean to hurt you-
-Well, that’s…inadequate but fine, get off my feet now and we’ll move on-
-Naaaaaah, i was kidding!!-
-What the flying fuck is wrong with you??-
-Heeeelp!! I’m being persecuted by drama thirsty harridans! It’s a witch hunt!!-
-What?-
-Aaaaaaaaaargh, it’s so horrible!! These irrational, overly dramatic people who won’t shut the fuck up about the harm that is being done to them are silencing me!! I’m such a victim, oh, the horror!! They need to be stopped! I know, i’ll join forces with the people who hate them to force them to shut up about how i’m supossedly stepping on their feet!
-Ok, you hypocritical arsehole, i know it’s going to take some time and effort, but since you won’t fucking step off my feet, i’m going to try and push you off for as long as you keep stepping on me-
just an fyi, I’ve only read one-third of the comments so far. So if someone else has said something similar to what I’m about to say, I apologize. I also apologize for being so long winded.
I can’t speak for anyone else, so I won’t try.
I’m much more likely to participate in a discussion or attend a conference or other gathering if I feel heard and I feel that my ideas are acknowledged and appreciated.
As a female, I’ve spent way, way too much of my life either being ignored or listened to but not acknowledged for my apt comments/good ideas (only being spoken to or mentioned when someone disagrees).
I had a bf who loved to talk about Taoism and philosophy, but he never included me in such discussions. He didn’t *say* he thought I was stupid. He said I didn’t *get it*. He talked to his male friends about ‘intellectual stuff’. I grew up with a mathematician step-father who would create problems for my brother to solve on Saturdays and brushed me off when I wanted to participate (my brother hated math). I spent two years studying math, physics, and astronomy in college and applied for and got a research assistant position with an astronomy professor, who extended my position from the summer to the school year he was so impressed, and then when I applied to an ivy league school (and got in, even nabbing a research assistant position at one of the labs there), another one of my astronomy professors who had attended the ivy league school in question told me in no uncertain terms that I wasn’t smart enough and didn’t deserve to be there. The professor I worked for told me the other guy was a douche and to ignore him, but he’d just underlined my greatest fears, so I ended up switching majors (to math and English). Later I went to graduate school for comparative literature, in part because I was scared to continue in math.
I love gaming (tabletop and some PC games) but it got too hard the way most fellow gamers (men) treated me, so I stopped.
I mostly post places where I know people not only read what I write but also acknowledge when I say something particularly insightful (typically those are those that take feminism as their primary topic of interest). I do post other places, but much less because (due to my username — clearly female) at those places even when I KNOW people are reading what I’ve written, agreeing, and even using what I said as a point of departure, they don’t bother to acknowledge that (though they do for people who are clearly male or it’s unclear from the username which gender the person is). At these places, the only time anyone mentions me by username … that person is criticizing. I’ve actually thought about changing my username … but I decided I wanted to forgo some of the Internet’s anonymity, so I use my real first name (and the same username everywhere).
Even on feminism-centered blogs, I’m sometimes attacked. Recently, someone called me an idiot who doesn’t have the first clue about science (because I said some research avenues might be less of a priority than others). Even after I told him how much science education I’d had, he said, “Well I still think you’re an idiot.”
It’s not enough to say women are welcome. You need to make them feel as welcome as you do men (offering child care, inviting many different kinds of speakers, etc. is great, but there are smaller-scale strategies that would also help). One place to start is online (because some people — like me — at least, dip their toe in the water using the Internet). If you use their ideas as a point of departure (or just agree), say so. That is to say, if you do that for people who are clearly male, also do it for people who are clearly female. Maybe you don’t acknowledge anyone … and that’s okay (not that it’s okay to be a douche, but it’s okay in the sense that no one is asking for special treatment).
LOL @ azhael 158!
diana6815, wow, that sounds awful. I’m sorry for your experiences, but thanks for sharing them.
And I appreciate that suggestion, diana6815. I’ll do my best to be more acknowledging.
diana6815: Thank you for telling us your story. It is amazing how many sexist microaggressions women have to face, and it is depressing how often that affects their careers, education, and even hobbies.
With your science background, I wonder if the boyfriend talking Taoism said “you didn’t get it”, but was actually more worried about you calling bullshit. As for the professor….Jesus fuck. They shouldn’t let assholes like that have any degree of control over our future generations.
I just wanted to pluck the following out of diana6815’s #159 and highlight it:
I think a lot of men think they’re being allies when they do this: reassuring a woman who has been dismissed or mistreated that she hasn’t done anything wrong, etc. She knows. She doesn’t need you to tell her that; she needs you to tell the man/men being dismissive of her.
Anthony K, anteprepro, and Seven of Mine
Thanks so much for reading and responding (and so quickly)! Truth be told, I was worried I might have entered the conversation too late to get any kind of response.
Anthony K: It does suck, but you gotta look forward. I’ve actually been thinking about returning to grad school for math. Nowadays, age matters a bit less. My mom went back to school at 50…and she had to do it all (bachelor’s and master’s).
anteprepro: Yeah…things are changing a bit, but women are still most often assumed to *not* be capable of certain things (science, math, tech, anything super abstract or spatial) and praised for physical appearance, the domestic, or work in the helping professions. Even when people *aren’t trying* to be unfair or limiting, it comes through. It’s not enough not to discourage … we need to *encourage* young women. The funny thing is, the bf in question had a degree in biology …
Seven of Mine: I couldn’t agree more. It doesn’t feel good to be “the one” who needs to understand and to alter behavior or mindset.
Diana6815:
You and Seven of Mime are right. And, I must say, the minimizing of women does happen so much less here than anywhere else. Still, sometimes the problem is less in dismissal of us as women than it is other possible circumstances.
Take my comment at 157. Like you, I didn’t tie it to anyone else’s earlier comment. I must, however, be left to wonder why it garnered no response.
Is it because
–I don’t comment enough to make a connection–in the main–without telling a personal story?
–I only told one personal bit above and that bit is resolved so there’s no “goal” to require response?
–no one who’d been responding on this thread was still awake or interested enough to help tie my comments to earlier ones?
–my writing is tediously for shit?
–my tying together “The Lord knows my heart” and Dawkins’ Vulcan stance is certainly supportive of Pharyngula opinion but too “meh” to do other than fall flat?
–azhael–a deserved favorite regular–wrote a great comment after mine that seemed to close the curtain on it and reopen a new act?
I’ll never really know, but even after the questions, a subject will come up that hits me with the need to say something in public. It has happened most often here, even though many of my comments garner no response. It’ll probably happen again here in the future.
This is a bunch of tough, smart, honest, rude (by the rules!) people, Diana. I’d rather be ignored here than by those like your boyfriend or patronized by the likes of your stepfather and professor.
athyco
Never think that your comment goes ignored – unresponded to, maybe, but definitely read and appreciated. :) Some of us read along quietly but you’re doing more good than you realize.
+++
This has been an awesome thread – thank you so much for the personal stories shared.
Here’s mine:
No, I am not a member of any particular atheist group (unless the Horde counts by default) because I am not aware of one locally (former Soviet bloc here), and to be honest, I just don’t have the time for any organized meetings right now. Any activism I can do, I prefer to do online, but the atheism part just seems so low on my priority list. I’ve been making Ferguson my priority, but there’s also women’s rights and LGBTQ issues that need attention here, too. Also, knowing the general social scene around and having kept up with all the sexist shit in atheist / skeptic / pretty-much-everywhere circles, I’m rather wary of any organized atheism. Or cons. Skepticon might be a fun one to go to, or one where a reasonable number of other hordelings will be present. But generally speaking, I don’t feel motivated or comfortable to make any special effort to participate in any organized forms of atheism.
Regarding my past experiences, I’ve been really lucky in a lot of ways, as I’ve never been expressly talked down to by men – teachers, TAs, etc. But then, I chose a ‘feminine’ field in biology, which was majoritarily women in my undergrad courses. I have not yet had the chance to continue my education, so I cannot speak to the higher levels of education. Something for the future.
The men who have attempted to persist in garnering my attention on the social scene have received the sharp side of my tongue, even publicly out loud, which they never expect (that one time in a coffee shop…). Sarcasm has been my weapon and my refuge more often than I can count, though, and I am glad for it – I’d much rather have a sarcastic battle of wits where everyone can retreat in mutual dislike than receive the kid-glove ‘you’re so precious’ treatment (condescending laughter included) that leaves me wondering.
All that is rather tame by comparison with others, but there it is.
@athyco
I read your comment and thought it was pretty insightful to compare the “Lord knows my heart” response of the religious to the “I’m so rational it hurts so whatever you say must be nonsense” response of Dawkins et al. You’re right–it serves the same function to enable the user to feel superior and to dismiss all interlocutors as unimportant. And I was disappointed to hear that Christina Rad doesn’t get it.
I didn’t respond because I think I went to do something else after reading it.
@diana6815
Your comment wasn’t too late. Thanks for your story. & ditto what AnthonyK said.
Sorry athyco, I didn’t mean to make you feel unread and unappreciated. (Time limitations have me checking in on threads like this from my mobile, and I miss comments often.)
Like Ibis3, I think you’re absolutely right that “The Lord Knows My Heart” and “Go away and learn to think” come from related impulses.
And thank you too, rq. I’ve appreciated your Ferguson updates, though I haven’t read them all for sure.
athyco @165
I’m ignored a lot (and acknowledged a lot) in various places (more in some places than others). It doesn’t feel awesome to be ignored, but I was more referring to when a person uses a point I brought up — uses it in his or her post and expands on my point but doesn’t acknowledge even seeing mine when it’s obvious the person did. Keep in mind…I’m not asking a person who just doesn’t acknowledge people to acknowledge me. I’m asking people who respond to posters who are clearly male but NOT to posters who are clearly female to do so. And only if they care about expanding the number of women in movement atheism.
Being ignored won’t stop me from reading a blog and the comments and may decrease my responses but won’t stop them altogether…however, that won’t inspire me to attend larger events. That’s what the larger purpose of my post was. To suggest something people could do if they wanted more women to attend.
I have to say though … On principle I can’t claim that it’s okay for any general group to ignore me … “You guys are cooler, so if some group must ignore me, I’m glad it’s you…”
Ibis3 @167
Kind of you to say :-)
rq:
Thank you. Preview never catches me up when I choose the wrong synonym, dang it, and it never reminds me that I might help myself with an emoji. : ) You are so right that I’d meant getting no response–for any of the valid reasons I listed and the others provided as well. “Ignored” has too much of the negative connotation of willfulness that undermined my list. My Twitter follows are such that much of the Ferguson info you post I’ve already seen, but I still come to the “Morning” posts to see what else you’ve rounded up. Exactly as you say–not responding to you, but reading and appreciating.
I don’t know whether you do your roundups anywhere else, but I am positive you encompass the idea that you do much of them 1) for yourself (your intense interest) and 2) in a community that you feel will value it. That’s the thing that I wanted to focus on: that when I have an idea or some information or some steam to blow, it’s to this community I most often come to air it.
Ibis, I was wondering if there wasn’t some way to work the idea into responses to Dawkins and his followers. No, it couldn’t have anything to do with knowing the heart. But maybe we could all be sad that the Vulcan mind meld has not yet been discovered on Earth? There was that disease that caused Spock’s aging dad Sarek (ST:TNG) to react emotionally while not realizing it. Can poor Richard Dawkins have it? Short and sweet, drop an “Ambassador Sarek, you’re overtired” into his mentions.
Anthony, no worries because I did stumble at the end of post 165 with “ignored” when it could be most freshly remembered. I think you’re most insightful and wittily adept, so if there’s anything in the Vulcan mind meld scenario, I’d love to see you head the pack running with it.
Sorry that I didn’t follow my usual practice of refreshing before I post, but I didn’t think this thread would have resurrected with more than 2 hours passing since Anthony’s comment. My bad. :(
I hope that explaining my error in using “ignored” rather than a more positively connotative term puts us on the same page. I totally agree with everything else in your comment.
athyco @172 :-)
On the subject: No. I am not a member of any atheist organizations.
Because of the way I looked when I was younger, I stayed the hell away from a lot of groups (not just atheist groups. A lot of nerdy groups and social scenes, too.) I could have joined, but I did NOT want to deal with the bullshit that came with being an “exotic” young woman of “ambiguous” racial makeup. Throw “stacked” on top of that, and I would be ready to snap a pool cue and start swinging in a few minutes. When I did go to group events, I was cliquish and aloof, simply because I did NOT want to fucking deal with the ignorant ass bullshit AGAIN. I had my crew and a thousand yard stare with Resting Bitch Face.
Now that I’m old, I’m invisible. And that’s a bit of a relief, but I still get plagued by multiple axes of fucking ignorant crap from privileged jerks who expect me to sit still for that shit, and no thanks.
But a few years ago the Deep Rifts hit my notice, and only then did I get interested in talking to other atheists – because suddenly there was more to it. I’m here for the justice. It’s more comfortable to be here for the justice with people that don’t expect me to be theist. These days, I would be interested in communicating with a local atheist organization – if the focus was on atheists who give a crap about justice, and a healthy number of the people in the group were also black.
Because I’m fucking tired of being the only black person in the room, you feel it? I’m not interested in being an organization’s Token Articulate Negro. So I’m staying home, and talking to a limited selection of atheists on the internet.
Athyco, i’m sorry if you didn’t feel acknowledged, i did read your post and thought that you were absolutely right with your comparisson. Dawkins is displaying that same kind of irrational, unquestioning thinking, except that in his case, the superiority complex doesn’t come from believing you can do no wrong because you mean well and that’s magic, but because he actually thinks he is better at thinking and if he sees no flaws, there can’t possibly be any. Same principle, though, it’s the “i’m the sole arbiter of whether i’m right or wrong, if others disagree it’s because they don’t understand”. Coming from a scientist and a self-described rationalist…this is pitiful.
If i personally didn’t comment on it, despite fully agreeing, is because i’m trying to not fall into the trap of commenting about everything i read that catches my eye. I’m trying to apply restraint, which is not always easy xD There are always too many excellent points being made in several threads at a time. I feel like i need to just read more and comment less.
ceesays
I love your input.
rq
Thanks. This particular saw makes me so *incredibly angry.* It really, really drives home just how little people understand about me. And how little effort they expend to try. It was like being treated like a zoo animal who could talk “so well!”
And it was something that I tried to explain to people, and what i found was that people put all the weight on me. “They’re just curious. They just want to know you. It’s because you’re pretty and unusual looking. A lot of these people have never met anyone like you. But it’s just your bone structure, you could be about anything, ethnically.” No one ever said, “I just realized that this whole entire room full of white people has had so little exposure to black people that they’re treating you like a zoo exhibit. That is a cascading array of WTF.”
I used to think that it was a Canadian thing, because Black people are about 2% of the population. But maybe it isn’t. And it’s not just atheism. It’s a lot of stuff I like. Comics. Games, SF&F. Music, ballroom dancing, scotch…it just goes on and on forever.
ceesays
Scary how many people never heard of self-education. Or perceiving people as people, rather than a skin colour or gender, and just welcoming them for the skills and knowledge they bring rather than that sense of the exotic. Anything different seems so mysterious and unknowable. :P And rather than accepting that, people love to question it, because differences. I don’t know how to change that, it’s like benevolent sexism – they mean so well, while not understanding the quiet harm they’re doing. (And that’s just looking at the well-meaning curiosity, rather than the outright nastiness out there.)
I’m sorry you’ve had to put up with that. I can’t say I would have been much better a few years ago, though. And I don’t know how much better I am now. So excuse me if I’m talking out of my ass.
Athyco (above)
Sorry for not responding, but yes, I do the roundups for me, mostly – but it would be useless to have them for myself. If I had a blog, roundups would be pointless because I would not have the readership. So, I can at least broadcast the information on PZ’S platform as long as he lets me (and others), and hopefully all that information out there will do something of benefit. Since I can’t be more directly involved at this point, well… it’s a poor substitute, but it’ll have to do.
And yes, this community is about the best out there that I’ve found, and I haven’t had much reason to search beyond this community since I found it. It’s not perfect, but it’s damn well pretty awesome.
Adding an apology for contributing to anyone’s feeling of being overlooked. It’s generally because I’ve nothing pertinent to add.
ceesays @177
Interesting – if I was attending groups, and even online to a degree, I’m as uncomfortable being expected (as in, assumed) to be atheist as to be theist. I avoid religious or quasi-religious groups as a rule, and prefer, overall, ones where the justice is the issue, not one’s beliefs about deity or the soul or anything along those lines.
ceesays:
It is ridiculous, too, that so many white atheists don’t stop to think that there’s so much more research you’d have to do to make sure of your first requirement unless you went with a group like Black Nonbelievers Int. I might simply look at a group’s membership roll and be able to say “sausage fest.” That would at least let me know to what extent a non-racially specific group had to date made an effort to be inviting/inclusive regarding women. Well…white women, at least.
It’s the organization’s responsibility to think ahead as much as possible to avoid the “cascading array of WTF” (that phrase is brilliant, btw). If they’re fallen short in prognosticating, then it’s the organization’s responsibility to fix the leaks and repair the drains. Stop that cascade where they and you stand and divert it elsewhere to be dealt with.
(There’s a situation you might google with “Bria Crutchfield outburst,” if you want to see plenty of white atheist fail. It would be another example of WTFuckery for white me to lay it in your lap as if expecting you respond.)
rq:
NOTE: What follows below turned out to be something of a rant and while prompted by rq’s words is in no way directed at rq or anyone else on this thread. :)
I think that part of it is that once we say “Intent is not magic,” we’re arguing the unknowable, interior past. When the harm happens, the well-meaning curious person of the past demonstrates “well-meaning” by refusing to argue the harm in the present. “Well-meaning” might then be the harmed person’s evaluation of their former status. If “well-meaning” people only care for their own evaluations, then let ’em talk to themselves sitting alone on the park bench. I won’t care to get involved.
Well-meaning curious people ought to be able to take a look at their protests of prior “innocent” intent and see it as a shield that plenty of nasties are grateful they can’t let go of. Well-meaning curious people must realize their curiosity proves even to themselves that they don’t know everything. With that in mind, they can realize that the statement “I’ve hurt someone without intention” is true even without the last two words. Dealing with the first part of the sentence will make the second part a possibility. Arguing that prepositional phrase without dealing with the main clause is ludicrous.
For years, I corrected 8th graders who said, “I didn’t mean it” to say “I didn’t think it through before I said it/did it.” For example, in a lesson about synonyms, I was allowing students to call me ugly if using a synonym, and we discussed the differences in connotation. That ended when W. said “I think she’s fugly.” I rounded on him with fury, and he was apologizing rapidly and repeatedly. I believed that he wouldn’t be saying that around me again, but he proved afterwards that he was a well-meaning kid rather than just a scared one. He approached me at the end of class, repeated his apology, and then told me that he still didn’t understand what had made me so angry. I taught him a quick mini-lesson in portmanteaus: smoke + fog = smog, breakfast + lunch = brunch. Then I wrote _____ + ugly = fugly and asked him what could possibly go in the blank. He was horrified and apologized again. I told him that the combination of his question and reaction had made me proud of him. I was also rather humbled that he trusted me to explain it to him.
So, there should be some way of telling adults that “didn’t intend” is a dastardly way to require someone else to be responsible for the “misunderstanding” that was totally secret to them while inside another’s brain while “didn’t think” is accurate and already proven by action. Skeptics who can’t get around the difference…sheesh.
athyco, that’s a terrific breakdown of “I didn’t intend/I didn’t mean/I didn’t think.” Even if an adult phrases it as “I didn’t intend,” if they are a person of goodwill, surely the thing to do – the thinking, caring thing to do – is to take on board that hey have hurt someone, and set about changing their behaviour. Hell, kids can do it, as you just showed. Surely adults can.
Kudos to you and to young W for that.
I have no idea what you mean; are the US Greens such an organization? (The Greens over here are easily 50 % women all the way to the top, but they’re rather different organizations to begin with…)
…Those people actually believe they’re right. So why would they shut up? Quite the opposite, they think they’re doing something brave and even necessary by that makes people so uncomfortable (for reasons they fail to understand).
The only method that has any hope of working is this, I fear.
*facepalm*
Do you seriously believe you know a statistically representative sample of people?
athyco
Nice. Double-nice, actually. That’s a really good, helpful way of thinking about it. Definitely makes it easier to address, as how do you teach someone to improve if they didn’t mean it? This implies a lack of knowledge, yet it’s rarely a true lack of knowledge – it is, as you say, a lack of thought-before-[action]. Going to think on applying this in life going forward, esp. with the kids.
* I don’t mean (haha) a lack of knowledge, I think… but a lack of deliberate (or not so deliberate) omission. It’s like things happening by accident – so, I didn’t mean it – but, if I didn’t mean it, why did I say it / do it? So… I think I got tangled up in words again, but the phrase ‘I didn’t mean it’ makes me think of one’s body having spontaneous actions over which we have no control. Ah, a lack of control over one’s self. Hm. When the point is to think and control one’s impulses rather than act on them.
[/thinking out loud]
TL;DR: This is just as much [/thinking out loud] as anything anyone else has written, and if it never gets single response beyond spam at the end of a fairly moribund thread, that’s fine and jim dandy.
rq:
In the days before mandatory seatbelts (yes, I’m old), I was navigator for my dad in a delivery van with my mom and three of my young second cousins as passengers. My 8-year-old cousin T was told he must sit on the floor since there were no fixed seats for them. T was directly told the reason: he wouldn’t be able to control his body and might injure himself or his younger siblings when he fell. He crouched in a ball over his feet and fingertips. (“I am sitting down!” he retorted because he could move his hands to the rear and put his backside on the floor). Then Dad pressed the brakes a bit more than usual to come to a stop at an intersection. With a loud, oh-so-dismayed cry, T “fell” forward, athletically springing full length over my mother’s lap and his sister’s legs. With one flailing fist, he managed to bloody his 3-year-old brother’s nose, and the still open, dismay-wailing mouth set a couple of incisor marks just above a little knee.
T was highly indignant that I immediately switched to place little brother in the passenger captain’s chair and even returned him there for the trip back. Everyone, T thought, was abusing him for something that was an accident. At least three decades ago he began taking our word for it that it was obviously “accidentally on purpose,” He’d been maneuvered from the beginning, after all, to have my mom and his sister between him and little brother due to…tendencies that he did remember from other points in childhood. He’d been so insistent on claiming lack of intent for this occasion, however, that he remembers it his way. I’ll excuse an 8-year-old for not seeing how obvious and oblivious he is to others with more experience, but that’s about my limit. :)
Sometimes I wonder if my thinking has been skewed by 30 years of dealing with ~150 8th graders per year. : ) It would give me a warm feeling by spring to overhear bystander 12-14-year-olds telling another, “No, you didn’t think it through” rather than allow that one to pout enough to distract from harm done. I hope the sentence worked its way into more parenting than my own. The response combines a condemnation for the act with a note of the individual being able to improve — by thinking — rather than having a set (bad) personality.
Do we adults calcify the ability to work with criticism that way? I think many do; some are never fully taught that any positive comes from criticism, after all. I think it’s a large part of those current James Watson and Bill Cosby defenders who are making the basis of their defense “Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater!” What, exactly, is the “baby” and why can’t they demonstrate that it’s there in the bathwater?
Also, with “I didn’t think it through,” students reported that they’d received less personal criticism or punishment or argument or ill-will when they responded that way in a number of situations. I used that point of enlightened self-interest in the later years’ discussion of my embargo on “I didn’t mean to….” Enlightened self-interest should be one of the fine reasons to agree that “intent is not magic.”
(What the heck, rq’s expression “one’s body having spontaneous actions” reminds me…)
P had not done as well as she’d liked on the final exam for Romeo and Juliet, which I’d handed back on a Thursday. On Friday, she asked about extra credit; I told her a recitation of the play’s prologue on Monday would be acceptable. When she began that terrifying-to-most-teens task of speaking in public, I was so happy to find her making a great job of it. Her pacing, expression, volume, body language, eye contact–all were top notch. The words flowed richly and meaningfully until she reached the 11th of the 14 lines. She stopped cold. That one line is pretty much an aside; I quite understood why it happened there and sorrowed for her. From the back of the room, I prompted the first two words: “Which, but…”
She thought. I could see the memory wash back to her. She drew a relieved breath and said, “Bitch, what.”
Quiet enough to hear a pin drop? No. It was quiet enough to hear the roar of air molecules displaced as the pin dropped, for all of the endless 2.2 seconds it took me to register her words, to note her aghast rigidity, and to burst out laughing.
She and I met in the middle of the center aisle and clasped forearms, holding each other up as we brayed. There were no sides left unsplit in that room. We wound down when the teachers who shared north and south classroom walls with me arrived together to restore order — surely, they thought, I must have left the hooligans unattended. Then, that brave girl declared that she had not finished, went back to the front of the room, and started from the beginning. Nailed it, too, even over the whoosh of twenty-some released breaths after “Which, but.”
Since we’d disturbed the other classes, I told everyone they could mime their applause, and we rose to our feet to demonstrate the sound of many hands furiously clapping without touching, the blowing of kisses, throwing of deeply inhaled, fragrant flowers, shedding of joyously overcome tears, and finally thrice mouthings of hearty “Hooray!” with arms flung up in unison after one boy waved our attention, bent forward and double pumped a clear “Hip Hip…”
I modified my lesson plan for that class. The mysteries of semicolon usage in a list of items with interior commas could wait. We discussed Spoonerisms. I defy anyone to find a better circumstance for students to remember the concept.
rq:
I’m going to join you in the [/thinking out loud], because your words spontaneous actions over which we have no control reminded me:
P had not done as well as she would’ve liked on the final exam of Romeo and Juliet. I handed the papers back on Thursday; she asked about extra credit on Friday, and I told her that a Monday recitation of the prologue would be acceptable for the increase she’d like.
At the beginning of class, I announced her and went to the back of the room. As she began that terrifying-for-most-teens task of public speaking, I was so happy that she was making such a good job of it. Her pacing, expression, volume, body language, eye contact–all top notch. All the nuances told me that she understood the content, that she was aware of where the language might lose a listener. I felt that she had to have practiced that total picture of slight head aside and eyes downcast while curling her fists inward in front of her at “where civil blood makes civil hands unclean,” but the gestures were individually natural.
The words flowed richly and meaningfully until she reached the 11th of the 14 lines. She didn’t stumble; she stopped cold. Since that line is almost an aside, I understood why it had happened there, sorrowed for her, and knew instantly that I’d take a bit more time than allotted to alleviate its impact for her and her peers. But for the here and now, I prompted the first two words: “Which, but….”
She thought. I could see the memory wash back to her. She drew a relieved breath and said, “Bitch, what.”
Quiet enough to hear a pin drop? No. Quiet enough to hear the roar of air molecules displaced as the pin dropped for the endless 2.2 seconds it took for me to register her words, take in her aghast rigidity, and burst into laughter.
She and I met in the middle of the center aisle of desks, grasped forearms to hold each other up, and brayed. There was no side left unsplit in that room. We wound down because the teachers who shared north and south classroom walls with me arrived independently but together to restore order — surely I must have left the hooligans unattended. Then, that brave girl declared that she hadn’t finished, returned front and center, and began from the beginning. She nailed it, too, even over the whoosh of twenty-some pairs of lungs emptying after “Which, but….”
I told everyone that since we’d once disturbed the other classes, we’d have to mime our applause. We rose to demonstrate the sound of hands clapping furiously without touching, the arc of fragrant roses tossed on her stage, the collapse into joyously overcome weeping, the flight of blown kisses. Finally she received the accolade of a unison of thrice delivered, punch-emphasized “Hooray!” when one boy, waving our attention, bent forward to mouth and double pump an unmistakable “Hip! Hip!”
My plan to delve into the mysteries of semicolon usage in a list with interior commas had to wait. In my book, a teacher who’d pass up that moment to discuss Spoonerisms isn’t competent. That moment has also helped me clarify my decision making for “didn’t think it through” versus “spontaneous actions over which we have no control.”