This article can be found here: www.salon.com/2014/10/03/new_atheisms_troubling_misogyny_the_pompous_sexism_of_richard_dawkins_and_sam_harris_partner/

At first blush, it would seem that an atheist movement would be exactly the sort of thing that would attract many women. After all, much of the oppression of women—from forced veiling to restricting abortion rights—is a direct result of religion. Unsurprisingly, then, feminism has a long tradition of outspoken atheists and religious skeptics within its ranks.Suffragist Elizabeth Cady Stanton preferred “rational ideas based on scientific facts” to “religious superstition.” Major feminist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir argued that belief in God exists in part to “repress any impulse toward revolt in the downtrodden female.” Modern feminist writer Katha Pollitt received the “Emperor Has No Clothes” award from the Freedom From Religion Foundation in 2001, where she said that religion is dangerous because “it connects with very terrible social energies that have lain in civilization for a very long time.”

But despite the natural and cozy fit of atheism and feminism, the much-ballyhooed “New Atheism” that was supposed to be a more aggressive, political form of atheism has instead been surprisingly male-dominated. The reason has, in recent years, become quite apparent: Many of the most prominent leaders of the New Atheism are quick to express deeply sexist ideas. Despite their supposed love of science and rationality, many of them are nearly as quick as their religious counterparts to abandon reason in order to justify regressive views about women.

Sam Harris, a prominent atheist author who has previously been criticized for his knee-jerk Islamophobic tendencies, recently came under fire when he added women to the category of people he makes thoughtless generalizations about.

Washington Post religion reporter Michelle Boorstein interviewed Harris, and during the interview she asked him why most atheists are male. “There’s something about that critical posture that is to some degree instrinsically male and more attractive to guys than to women.” He added, “The atheist variable just has this— it doesn’t obviously have this nurturing, coherence- building extra estrogen vibe that you would want by default if you wanted to attract as many women as men.”

There was an immediate uproar among female atheists, and understandably so, as Harris didn’t even consider that it could be atheism that has a problem, instead immediately assuming that the problem is women themselves. His reaction to the criticism, which was immediate and probably a bit overwhelming was not, however, a demonstration of the tough “critical posture” he characterized as “instrinsically male.”

DoctorAlien:
This article can be found here: www.salon.com/2014/10/03/new_atheisms_troubling_misogyny_the_pompous_sexism_of_richard_dawkins_and_sam_harris_partner/

Having read the article, I am not sure one can take the perhaps misogynistic views of one or two atheists and then equate that to an inherent misogyny and sexism in atheism in general. Unlike most religions where there are clearly defined rules and roles for women that are obviously sexist and misogynist, there are no institutes of atheism defining such roles for women. I see the article as little more than a “red herring”. And to be sure, I am not an atheist.

Harris replied to his criticswith a hyper-defensive and tediously long blog post titled, “I’m Not The Sexist Pig You’re Looking For.” His strategy for disproving accusations of sexism was to engage in more sexist declarations, in the time-honored bigot strategy of saying it’s not bigotry if it’s true.

First, he warmed up with the “women are humorless” gambit, declaring his “estrogen vibe” comment a joke that simply flew over female heads. He then moved on to produce an awesome cornucopia of sexist blather: Women’s value is their service to men. (“I was raised by a single mother. I have two daughters. Most of my editors have been women, and my first, last, and best editor is always my wife.”) Women’s inherent desire to serve rather than lead explains their second-class status. (“For instance, only 5 percent of Fortune 500 companies are run by women… How much is due to the disproportionate (and heroic) sacrifices women make in their 20s or 30s to have families?”)

Sarassin:


Having read the article, I am not sure one can take the perhaps misogynistic views of one or two atheists and then equate that to an inherent misogyny and sexism in atheism in general. Unlike most religions where there are clearly defined rules and roles for women that are obviously sexist and misogynist, there are no institutes of atheism defining such roles for women. I see the article as little more than a “red herring”. And to be sure, I am not an atheist.

U are objective... And u have common sense...

Sarassin:


Having read the article, I am not sure one can take the perhaps misogynistic views of one or two atheists and then equate that to an inherent misogyny and sexism in atheism in general. Unlike most religions where there are clearly defined rules and roles for women that are obviously sexist and misogynist, there are no institutes of atheism defining such roles for women. I see the article as little more than a “red herring”. And to be sure, I am not an atheist.

Quite, quite.....thank you.

Putting women on a pedestal is better than treating them like equals. (“I tend to respect women more than men.”) Women who don’t defer to men are bitchy. (“However, I don’t think I’ll ever forget the mixture of contempt and pity my words elicited from this young woman.”) Needless to say, for women who reject religion because it so frequently portrays women as mentally inferior helpmeets who exist to serve men’s needs, Sam Harris is not offering any hope that atheism will give them a meaningful alternative.

It would be nice to dismiss Harris as an outlier, but sadly, pompous sexism followed up by defensive posturing is the order of the day for the dominant male leadership of the loosely organized world of atheism. In a lengthy investigative piece for Buzzfeed, Mark Oppenheimer demonstrated that the problem extends beyond sexist condescension. Instead, the bros-before-h.s attitude of much of atheist leadership is quite likely serving to protect actual sexual predators.

randomperson:
U are objective... And u have common sense...

Are you going to throw your god Richard Dawkins under the bus now?

U are painting atheism as sexist or misogynist but u fail to realize that women are not allowed to become catholic priests or until very recently in some countries, Anglican bishops....
There are many verses in the bible demeaning and degrading women and that includes new testament verses... Some are mentioned in this thread https://www.nairaland.com/3563053/how-bible-demeans-women/2#52666648
In fact studies have shown that married Christian women are more prone to domestic violence or abuse than atheist married women... And the church still expects these women to submit to their husbands

Is this the intellectual devolution of the once-esteemed DoctorAlien?

---

Show me your friends...

randomperson:
U are painting atheism as sexist or misogynist but u fail to realize that women are not allowed to become catholic priests or until very recently in some countries, Anglican bishops....
There are many verses in the bible demeaning and degrading women and that includes new testament verses... Some are mentioned in this thread https://www.nairaland.com/3563053/how-bible-demeans-women/2#52666648
In fact studies have shown that married Christian women are more prone to domestic violence or abuse than atheist married women... And the church still expects these women to submit to their husbands

Seun, this person is derailing the thread. This violates rule no.1

While Oppenheimer focused on a number of prominent sexists in atheism, such as Penn Jillette and now-deceased Christopher Hitchens (who also was a fan of the “women are humorless” trope), he focused most of piece on accusations against prominent skeptic writer Michael Shermer. Oppenheimer quoted two named women accusing Shermer of sexually harassing them. A third named women had a more alarming accusation: That Shermer had taken her to his room while she was too drunk to consent to sex and had sex with her anyway.

The reaction to Oppenheimer’s story was swift and did much to support the claim that the atheist community protects sexual predators, much like the Catholic Church did during the priest pedophilia scandal.

DoctorAlien:


Are you going to throw your god Richard Dawkins under the bus now?

I didn't even know about Richard Dawkins until I joined nairaland. Don't assume all atheists know him, Richard Dawkins is a human being, therefore he's flawed and imperfect. He is not a benchmark for atheism. No one is. That's why its not a religion.
On the other hand, your god who BTW u claim is perfect and benevolent commanded that when a girl is raped, the only punishment for the rapist is that he should pay 50 shekels and the girl is sold to the rapist forever... The rape victim is stuck with the assailant and she has no say in the matter.
Your god condoned RAPE OF WOMEN and it's atheism that sexist and misogynist.

Richard Dawkins, possibly the most famous atheist in the world, immediately went on a tear on Twitter, blaming victims for their own rapes if they were drinking. “Officer, it’s not my fault I was drunk driving. You see, somebody got me drunk,” he tweeted, comparing being forced to have sex with the choice to drive drunk.

When called out on it, he doubled down by suggesting that rape victims are the real predators, out to get men put in jail: “If you want to be in a position to testify & jail a man, don’t get drunk.”

For someone who is a supposed rationalist, Dawkins refused to even acknowledge the basic difference between making the choice to break the law and being the victim of a crime. But only for rape, of course. It’s unlikely Dawkins would think it’s your fault if you are standing there minding your own business, while drunk, and someone hits you for no reason. But if the assault occurs with a pen.s instead of a fist, in Dawkins’ mind, suddenly the victim is the person at fault.

DoctorAlien:
Richard Dawkins, possibly the most famous atheist in the world, immediately went on a tear on Twitter, blaming victims for their own rapes if they were drinking. “Officer, it’s not my fault I was drunk driving. You see, somebody got me drunk,” he tweeted, comparing being forced to have sex with the choice to drive drunk.

When called out on it, he doubled down by suggesting that rape victims are the real predators, out to get men put in jail: “If you want to be in a position to testify & jail a man, don’t get drunk.”

For someone who is a supposed rationalist, Dawkins refused to even acknowledge the basic difference between making the choice to break the law and being the victim of a crime. But only for rape, of course. It’s unlikely Dawkins would think it’s your fault if you are standing there minding your own business, while drunk, and someone hits you for no reason. But if the assault occurs with a pen.s instead of a fist, in Dawkins’ mind, suddenly the victim is the person at fault.

atheism is a non prophet organisation Richards Dawkins don't symbolise or represent what atheism is.

pesty100:
atheism is a non prophet organisation Richards Dawkins don't symbolise or represent what atheism is.

LOL

Very soon I will write a thread on why the internet "new atheism" is male dominated.

Is it not surprisingly coincidental that males make up more than 80 percent of modern day internet pornography addicts?

Many of them are products of what I call subconscious justification.

They have subconsciously created beliefs that help them to live side by side their addictions.
Richard dawkins, freud etc all have this inclinations...

My thread on this is coming soon.

I will show how Pornography addicts and other addicts become atheists....

Coming soon

felixomor:
Very soon I will write a thread on why the internet "new atheism" is male dominated.

Is it not surprisingly coincidental that males make up more than 80 percent of modern day internet pornography addicts?

Many of them are products of what I call subconscious justification.

They have subconsciously created beliefs that help them to live side by side their addictions.
Richard dawkins, freud etc all have this inclinations...

My thread on this is coming soon.

I will show how Pornography addicts and other addicts become atheists....

Coming soon

are you trying to say most people becomes Atheists because of Internet pornography

pesty100:
are you trying to say most people becomes Atheists because of Internet pornography

Many, yes

felixomor:


Many, yes

kontinue

pesty100:
kontinue

bro
What have we not heard