Feminist hypersensitivity or masculine obtuseness?

The latest furious argument going on in the atheist community is over this panel at an American Atheists meeting in Huntsville, Alabama. The subject was what atheist groups can do to attract more women, which is a good and important question. Kudos for asking it.

Here, go watch the video before you read further. Try to see the problem that got some people rather irate.

Done? OK. Now go read what Sharon Moss and Lyz Liddell had to say about it, their subsequent clarification, and Ophelia Benson’s comments.

Listen. To. The. Women.

I’ve got a simple suggestion for my fellow men. Learn to shut up and listen. Seriously. You want women to find your organization pleasant and interesting and worth contributing to? Then don’t form panels full of men trying to figure out what women want, talking over women who try to get a word in edgewise, belittling women’s suggestions with jokes, and trying to determine how We Well-Meaning Men can give Those Women what we think they want. You are assuming an authority and presuming that it is in your power to give it to the minority, when what you should be doing is deferring to that minority and giving them your attention, letting them speak and shape your organization.

We men have the benefit of a culture that has put us in a position of default social dominance, whether we deserve it or not. There is this bias that colors our interactions with women (and vice versa), and we are perpetuating it when we patronizingly try to explain to the ladies that we want to be more attentive to their needs.

You have to surrender your attitudes. You have to SHUT UP AND LISTEN. You have to be willing to listen to a woman disagreeing with you, without dismissing her complaints as unimportant.

I don’t know why that’s so hard to get across to people. But fellows, just imagine this: a community meeting in your town is held in which a group of liberal, well-intentioned people are trying to figure out how to deal with the burgeoning population of godless folk. They have a meeting: on the panel in the front of the room is one quiet atheist and five Christians of various denominations. And then the Christians proceed to preach about the fraternity of Christ and loving their neighbor and how important it is to find these lost souls a welcoming place in the community, and they get positive affirmations from all the religious attendees, while the atheists sit, surrounded by the condescending godly.

How would you feel? Would you have any confidence at all that this group was even interested in making you a full and equal social partner?

I know what comes next. You’ll say the atheists in that group need to be assertive and aggressive and take some authority, and that women need to do that too, so it’s not your fault. And it’s true that women could assert themselves more, except look what happens when they do: they’re too sensitive, their concerns are trivialized, they are made light of, they are mocked, in the worst cases they are called “bitches” and “man-haters”…and it quickly becomes obvious that the men in this group don’t really want women to have any authority at all, and the women quickly realize that they don’t want to be part of this community.

So we’ll convene another panel in which a bunch of men will wonder what they can do to encourage women to participate more. Round and round it goes.

So let’s get specific. You’re organizing an atheist meeting. You want more minority participation. Don’t decide that after you’ve recruited the top ten white atheist males you wanted for your roster of speakers: do it first, make a commitment to bring in women and people of color.

You’ve got Richard Dawkins signed up? Great, he’s a fantastic speaker, he’ll bring in a lot of attention. Now go after a woman of equal assertiveness, and don’t give her second billing (if you try to say that there are no women that potent, I’m going to have to slap you hard, and tell you you have no business organizing this conference, then. And then I’ll give you a list.) Design your ads to give equal or greater attention to her, and send the message that this is important.

Do you want to consciously discuss the matter of minority participation? Whatever you do, don’t put it in the hands of a speaker or panel dominated by the majority, do not give the people who already have amplified voices a megaphone and tell them to pontificate. Tell them to shut up. That panel in Huntsville should have been all women. If the subject of women was only part of the range of topics under discussion then when it came to that question, the men should have a) shut up and let the woman speak, or better yet, b) left their chairs and invited women from the audience to sit up front for a while.

This really isn’t hard. Unless you’re incapable of shutting up.

Now I predict that the comments here will fill up with people explaining that there really wasn’t a problem at that panel, there was no raging sexism on display, etc., etc., etc., all demonstrating that it really is hard for some guys to shut up and swallow it.

I want to be Paula Kirby when I grow up

Ah, that feels so good…Paula Kirby really cut loose on the believers yesterday. The topic was the compatibility of religion and freedom—they’re about as compatible as religion and science.

Religion claims to set its followers free, while all the time holding them in thrall and insisting they kiss the hand of their jailer. There can be no true freedom so long as religion still keeps the human mind in shackles.

You really must read the whole thing. It’s probably not a good idea to do it at work, though, because afterwords you’ll want to snuggle up and fall asleep.

Asking the Big Questions

My university is running a year long open seminar called Asking the Big Questions, in which speakers are brought in to more or less informally discuss ideas with an audience. This year’s theme is “faith and spirituality”.

Yuggh.

Anyway, they’ve brought in people to discuss Chinese philosophy, Wicca/paganism, Islam, etc. I think it’s good that students are getting exposed to diverse ideas and that proponents are given an open forum in which to discuss them, even if what it means is that often bullshit is getting presented as serious thought. Let people listen and think.

Except now they’re dragging me into it. I’m speaking on Thursday evening, 7:00 in the Briggs Library McGinnis room (6:30 if you want to come for socializing) on atheism, agnosticism, and secular humanism. The library is also providing a few short, serious readings on the natural selection, atheism, agnosticism, and humanism for attendees to read ahead of time. (You can get to them by going to the library’s Electronic Reserves page and searching by instructor for “Bremer”; look for course number “Lib5000”.) Dayyum. I thought I was just supposed to show up with a flamethrower and set the room on fire.

The format for the evening is that I should say a few words for 15 minutes, and then the discussion is open to questions. It might be fun, if people turn out, so I’m hoping to get a good mix of enlightened atheists and ignorant, savage believers in the audience. Show up if you’re in the neighborhood of Morris on Thursday.

Guinea pigs, please line up here

I have received a request for volunteers to assist as subjects in a research project. I was disappointed; there are no exotic drugs, no catheters, no insane experimental surgeries that will turn you into a super-being with surprising powers beyond all mortal ken, but the fellow did manage to spell my name correctly, so it must be on the up-and-up. Contact Ben Myers (hey! That’s how he got the spelling correct — he cheated!) if you’re interested.

Dr. Myers,

I am an assistant professor of communication studies at USC Upstate. I am in the process of starting a research project and I was wondering if I could ask you for a favor. My research project is centered around atheist/agnostic coming out experiences. For my data, I am planning on collecting stories from those who have “come out” to religious family and friends. I am an ally (and a big fan of your blog). I am interested in this project because of my own very difficult “coming out” experience with my family.
I am planning on doing a rhetorical analysis of common themes across coming out stories. I have included my research plan if you would like more details. Also, I have already received IRB approval for the study.
I will conduct and record interviews over skype. The interviews are open-ended, so I have a few basic questions but I am primarily interested in just letting people tell their stories.
To start the project, I need to find atheists/agnostics who would be willing to share their “coming out” stories. This is where I would like to ask you a favor. I am looking not just for atheist/agnostics, but for atheists/agnostics who have specific “coming out” stories. I am sure there are lots of readers of Pharyngula who would fit the criteria. Would you be willing to dedicate a post to helping me find participants? Perhaps you could post my email and a short blurb about what the research project is about. Participants could then contact me directly.
Also, no need to worry about the project. Any work that results from these interviews will be presented with the ethos of helping readers understand the “coming out” process and how difficult it is. I am an ally, and a proud “out” atheist myself.
Thank you very much for your consideration. And please do not hesitate to ask for additional information if you feel it necessary. And keep on fighting the good fight.

Sincerely,

Ben

—
W. Benjamin Myers, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Speech
Department of Fine Arts and Communication Studies
USC Upstate
864.503.5870

Here’s the short research plan.

You don’t really want to be like Ray Comfort, do you?

Last week, I made a post criticizing poor atheist arguments, and in particular, citing atheists who fall back on the limp crutch of the dictionary to justify their beliefs. This made many people upset. I have been named idiot of the week for failing to understand the meaning of atheism, and I’ve got one wanking manic obsessive on twitter insisting that I must make a public apology for daring to try to redefine the meaning of the word “atheism”. Commenters are declaring that they are proud to be Dictionary Atheists.

They’re all wrong. I’m not redefining atheism, nor am I declaring the dictionary wrong: I’m saying it is insufficient. Also, no one is a Dictionary Atheist, and the folly lies in pretending that you are one.

I do not have the power to redefine the word, and I’m also smart enough to know it. I only wish those readers had been smart enough to realize that, too. My article was not a top-down commandment (it’s peculiar and revealing that so many thought it was), but was instead a bottom-up recognition of an obvious fact.

Everyone who is an atheist is so because of other, prior ideas. I’m not saying that there is one set of ideas that make for a True Atheist™, but rather that if you claim there are not, if you pose as someone who is an atheist simply because you don’t believe in gods, you are failing to consider your own philosophical foundations. Calling yourself a Dictionary Atheist is like taking pride in living an unexamined life.

That’s it. And that’s what really annoys me, people who can’t recognize that there’s more to their atheism than blind acceptance of what a dictionary says.

It’s sad to see that so many atheists have something in common with Ray Comfort. As you might expect, Comfort completely distorts what I wrote to claim that I was “pointing out the non-existent foundations of atheism.” Not so, of course, since I was saying the precise opposite: that atheism has strong and rich foundations, and is not simply a blanket rejection of deities.

That’s what Dictionary Atheists imply. Not me.

When will the AAAS stop pandering to superstition?

Jerry Coyne has made a strong observation, and is also hinting at an alternative, about the way the AAAS panders to religion. Once again, they’re having a session at the national meeting in February dedicated to the accommodationist view, with a one-sided slate of speakers all preaching about the compatibility of science with superstition. We’re all getting a little tired of this, I think; it’s the same old story where a bunch of credulous apologists get to trample freely all over science in the name of putting up a façade of simpering friendship with religion, all in the name, they say, of political expediency.

Coyne is peeved about several things: the dishonesty of the evangelical position (no, the Trinity is not supported in any way by science), the blatant bias of these discussions that are presented as if they are an open-minded way of handling the issues when they only offer one side, and the unrepresentative nature of these panels that completely ignore with the purpose of implicitly rejecting the views of a very large bloc of American scientists. It’s freakin’ obvious that the AAAS is pandering to evangelical Christianity, and that minority views that are actually in opposition to science are being presented as reasonable compromises. Here’s what Coyne says and suggests:

What irks me about all this are two things. The first is the complete omission of contrasting anti-accommodationist views. There is a huge subset of AAAS members who don’t feel that science and faith are in harmony–indeed, that they are in dire conflict. Those views never get represented at these meetings. You will never see a AAAS symposium on “The incompatibility of science and faith,” with scientist-speakers like Richard Dawkins or Victor Stenger. (What a lovely thing that would be!). The AAAS chooses to present only one view, as if it represented a majority of its members. What about the many of us who feel that the best thing for science–and humanity as a whole–is not respectful dialogue with evangelical Christians, but the eradication of evangelical Christianity?

I agree that a realistic symposium at the AAAS that didn’t try to whitewash Christianity into a friend of science and reason would be wonderful — I’d want to go. Like him, I doubt that it would happen, in particular because it would be misrepresented by the accommodationists. It’s already happening; if you look at the comments there, you’ll find Nick Matzke mangling the idea. He’s obsessed with the last sentence I quoted above, and apparently believes that such a symposium would consist of ringleaders of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy plotting how to destroy Christians. The session topics would be something like this:

  1. Why all religions are evil and must be eradicated

  2. Christians: Should they be burnt at the stake, or merely imprisoned for life?

  3. Ignition temperatures and incineration requirements for human bodies

  4. Closing hymn of praise to Richard Dawkins

I don’t think Nick Matzke can even imagine what a group of secularists would find useful at AAAS — he’s projecting quite a bit, and presuming that such a session would be as one-sided and blinkered as these sessions the evangelical Christians are running. They wouldn’t. I’m as antagonistic to religion as Coyne is, maybe more so (hey, there’s another session possibility: “Atheists Roast Christianity,” where we all vie with each other to insult religion the most), but unlike what the Matzkes of the world assume, we are actually aware of the political situation.

If I were in charge of organizing such a beast, here’s what I’d look for. I’d want to have an honest religionist or philosopher/historian of religion there to give a talk on key doctrinal conflicts: what are they? How do modern Christians and Muslims and Jews resolve them? They are there, of course: there are major points like teleology in the universe and mind-body dualism that are unsupported or even contradicted by science. He wouldn’t have to endorse or oppose any of those points, but simply, clearly, explain where the conflicts lie.

I’d want someone to discuss secular approaches to school and public education. These do NOT involve teaching atheism in the schools. I’m a big fat noisy atheist myself, but when I get into the classroom to teach one of those controversial topics like evolution, my atheism is not an issue, and I don’t tell the students they have to abandon their gods to be a scientist. What the attendees at AAAS do not need is someone telling them how wonderful Christianity is; what would be useful is someone explaining how to teach honest, evidence-based science without compromising their principles, no matter what they are.

I’d want someone with political and legal expertise to discuss what the law actually says about science education. The perfect person would be someone like Barry Lynn, or Sean Faircloth, or Eddie Tabash — a person who could lay out exactly what kind of political tack scientists should take with legislators to keep the taint of religious bias out of support for science.

Actually, the atheist-run version of such a session would be what a science organization should want: instead of some half-assed stab at rapprochement with clearly unscientific, irrational, traditional metaphysics, and instead of the tribal war council the accommodationists imagine, it would be a rational discussion of how secular scientists (which would include religious scientists who are committed to keeping their beliefs out of the lab and classroom) can get their jobs done in a crazily religious country. As long as these pious zealots are left in charge, though, that’s not what we’re getting.

I can go to atheist meetings to get my rah-rah on for godlessness; people like Leshner, the organizer of the currently planned come-to-Jebus meeting, can go to church and get their idiot-ology affirmed there. An AAAS symposium ought to be actually accomplishing something for all of the members of the organization, not just the atheists and especially not just the deluded apologists under loyalty oaths who want to Christianize science.

The Nature of Existence

I forgot to mention that I did attend the local screening of The Nature of Existence, the new movie from Roger Nygard in which he traveled the world asking various people grand questions about the meaning of life, etc. It was entertaining, and it is subtly subversive of religious views, so I will recommend it. But I do have a few reservations that I was also able to bring up in the Q&A after the movie.

One thing that was alarmingly obvious when watching it is that almost all the gurus and authorities and religious figures that he interviewed were male. There were exceptions — the 12 year old daughter of his neighbor (who was an unrepentant atheist, and I thought the most sensible voice in the whole movie), a lesbian priest, the wife of a pastor — but otherwise, this show is one long sausage-fest. When I pointed this out, Nygard was apologetic and recognized that this is a significant omission, but explained that he simply hadn’t noticed when he was filming the material. Isn’t that the whole problem, that we’re oblivious to these omissions of half the population of the planet?

Another problem was actually a tactical decision, and I can actually understand why it was done this way. All of the interviews were friendly; Nygard made a conscious decision to be entirely non-confrontational and just allow the interviewees to speak without criticism. It’s a policy that opened doors and allowed him access, and encouraged the people to speak at length. I can’t imagine him making this movie any other way, but still…there were parts where the lack of a critical interrogation meant the subjects were able to effectively hide the more hateful parts of their beliefs. For instance, he interviewed the odious Zakir Naik, the Muslim fanatic who thinks it is a religious obligation to kill opponents of Islam (apostates should merely be imprisoned), and who also considers homosexuality grounds for execution. He also interviewed pompous ol’ Orson Scott Card, and his raving homophobia was left unexposed.

So I was left with rather mixed feelings. The movie only illuminates the middle ground of religious belief, and while it exposes the absurdity while avoiding being judgmental, it also manages to bury the worst aspects of religion. That’s tactically sensible and I consider it an overall good because it will get the movie watched by more people, but man, it’s not my style, and it sort of grated on my nerves. It was nice. I kept waiting for something to explode.

The Not-So-Evil Atheist Conspiracy spreads its tentacles deeper into the fabric of American life

Good news! The Secular Student Alliance is now working to promote godless organizations in high schools. They’re going to be everywhere! There is resistance, of course, but the law is on our side, and the schools have to allow students to organize for meetings with a secular purpose.

Are you a high school student? Are you interested in gathering your fellow atheists together to promote critical thinking? Then you need to email JT Eberhard right now and ask for his help. He’ll get you started, and you, of course, will make him work very hard to earn the massive salary he probably receives in his new job as the Campus Organizer and High School Specialist at SSA. In fact, it’s perfectly OK if you try to get in touch with him any hour of the day or night — tell him I said you had permission.