Are they really that enthralled with these men that they are willing to overlook the very obvious problem?

And they are often the first to bark loudly about how people should leave other organizations that have issues with sexism.

I am glad that women like this are continuing to speak up and take a stand and think we need to shout down those that refuse to acknowledge and address it.

Why would anybody take positions like Dawkins, et al? It makes no sense whatsoever? And to those who threaten women who speak out, I have nothing but utter disdain. But there seems to be plenty of people providing cover for those who are threatening, mainly, the former group. I am more than a bit disgusted by the whole thing.

Then, there are people like DJ Grothe who apparently do not see this as a problem at all. (One indeed wonders if this stems from libertarianism.) Thank goodness the JREF has seen the end of him. I've never liked the guy.

One wonders whether libertarians are confusing themselves with libertines.
I don't like either of them.

One of the good guys is PZ Myers, whose noisy Blog has been relentlessly and unapologetically hammering away at this issue. One only hopes that such activism does some good.

The repulsive young men that attack these women with threats of violence are just thugs, imo.

I think we are seeing more and more people stand up against the sexism and some marginalization of those who continue to express and/or defend it.

There are some really good people out there on this issue and others. I hope to see them continue to be vocal and supported.

Hope you are well, longship. I have returned to the US and am visiting friends and family before going home to Mexico.

Live is very, very good.

Another trend I have seen is people, including some atheistic and nihilistic groups, bashing feminism by using extreme examples to represent the norm.

I am at a loss to understand what is driving this.

I could make guesses, such as bitterness from failed relationships, upbringing, the overpowering urge to make sociological claims without studying sociology,...? I just don't know, but I would guess different people have different reasons.

Will we ever move beyond this? I think it's an organizational thing to some extent. When power and position come into the equation, I think the risk of patriarchy becomes much greater.

I don't see this so much on an individual level. My kids and their friends seem to have relationships where the dynamic has significantly changed.

But when it comes to organizations, there appears to be a throwback to earlier eras.

Because I thought the driver was pretty obvious.

Has nothing to do with religion or philosophy, per se.

It's the PATRIARCHY.

It's a disease. We've all been exposed, almost all of us have it.

Some of us have gotten over it.

It's not just men, either.

I am constantly tripping myself up with patriarchal attitudes and assumptions, because it is how I was raised. It is the air I breathe. It takes conscious effort to perceive all of it.

Yes, some bits of it are pretty obvious and clearly reprehensible and we're just starting to say "enough, that doesn't work, we have to get over this."

But when you've built EVERYTHING-- economy, culture, social organization, religion, philosophy, science, EVERYTHING around patriarchal assumptions for thousands of years, no one should be baffled when misogyny keeps cropping up everywhere.

wearily,
Bright

Right to the point. Thanks.

As a child of the feminism of the 70's, I find it disturbing that this continues to be such a significant problem.

Perhaps I am wrong to want newer organizations to have a better attitude.

I'm not baffled, but I am disappointed.

For starters, in investing too much in the idea that there is an 'atheist movement', so-called, and moreso in that it has 'leaders'.

Dawkins has been a source, for me, for information within his field of expertise; biology. That's it. He could shut the fuck up forever on everything else, and that would be quite fine with me. Especially on Twitter. If every single thing one says on twitter requires a multi-page explanation, either one is a twitter-troll, or an idiot.

Harris is exhorting a bit too hard for what seems to me, armed opposition to islam, along the lines of Hitchens, when he was alive, and rooting for the second Iraq war. And we all saw what a clusterfuck that turned out to be. (And Harris seems to be making some sexist noises as well, doubleplusungood.)



But here's what I don't get. These two example men have more or less made careers out of insisting that we are each, just mammals. Nothing more. Why do some people seem to insist on caring so very much about what they have to say on this or any other issue, such as sexism? They are irrelevant and uninteresting on this subject. Recent comments may reveal interesting things about them as individuals, nothing more.

As a society, we need to stop putting undeserving people on pedestals. I am an atheist, neither of those men represent me. I stand on my own.

And the wanna-be "skeptics". Most are also Libertarians, which also has it's share of abject misogyny.

I saw it all over the place (but certainly not in the majority, just a very vocal and influential minority) in physics. In graduate school and after. Really felt like little boys to me still playing.

I had avoided the free-thinker groups because I just assumed that's the way most atheists were like. My wife, in her seeking wanted to join and so introduced me to several of the groups in the Lone Star State even, and it was an eye-opener. These were truly good, liberal and progressive people. Feminists with women generally in the majority (maybe because many had an average age of of 60). But, even the meetup group was mostly liberal and equal opportunity. It was such a nice discovery for me.

But, again, I think this misogyny comes out of the venerable old hard science and wanna-be world, many times seduced by Randian dreams of superiority and selfishness. Why wouldn't that wing be just as disdainful of women, who mostly are not a part of their self-restricted ranks.

Ugly sesspool actually.

The hard sciences are areas where women have traditionally had trouble breaking in or being fully accepted.

And the issue of libertarians within the "movement" is something that has been discussed before.

I think your experience is the norm - most groups of non-believers are very liberal and not at all sexist.

But there is a problem within what is often considered the leadership.

I am glad to see women like this challenging it head on.

The title especially. Although, most of organized atheism that I know is local free-thinker groups and they are not at all like any described in the OP. However, the examples are damning and are not being condemned nor rooted out sufficiently for my taste. This crap is making me and many of my friends want to disconnect from many of the at the least indifferent but well recognized (by their own hand) atheists.

but sexism bothers me much more than the fallacious headline.

Atheism in general? An event? Some particular group?

I'm not aware of any direction that Dawkins or Harris or any other speaker/debater provides that constitutes leadership of the Atheist "movement". The only thing we have in common is lack of a belief in God.

But there are still individuals and groups who might be considered leaders.

...and look to leadership (from the Pope down to the local rabbi or Imam) to tell them what that behavior is. There is no "right" way to live as an atheist, nor anyone to decree it.

theists have in common is a belief in god. One can not make this claim for atheists and then not allow it to be made for theists.

One can draw some conclusions about atheists based on demographics and surveys, just as one can for theists.

The assumptions that theists by and large believe certain things and look to leadership to tell them what to do is just an assumption. You may have data to show that it is true of some types of theists, but there is data that could be equally applied to describe some types of atheists.

There is no "right" way to live as a theist nor anyone to decree it. It is merely a belief in a god or gods.

I can only speak for the denomination in which I was raised but the Baptist church told us how to dress, how to speak, how to pray, how vote, how to work and pretty much how to live our lives and you were ostracized if you didn't toe the line. They wanted to control every aspect of our lives - from breathing to breeding and beyond.

Since I've been an atheist I haven't noticed anyone telling me how to do anything.

That said, I firmly believe Dawkins still owes Skepchick an apology but I'm not convinced he would understand why. Fortunately, he's not in charge of anything that I need to leave.

eta~ As far as I know there is nobody in atheism advocating that I be sexist. Unlike the Baptist church I grew up in that demanded women be submissive to their husbands. Or that women should wear dresses because pants were man clothes. At least they weren't so primitive that they banned make-up - I remember the pastor at my church thinking it was very funny to preach from the pulpit that make-up was OK because "if the barn needs paintin', ya paint it!"

your sphere.

I was raised in a denomination that never told us how to dress or speak or part or work, but did give a lot of guidance in the how to vote department.

But those decisions were made as a community. The community used what they believed to be true about chrisitianity to make those decisions, but they were in no way imposed.

Clearly there is no one advocating that you be sexist. The quandary here is whether there are those advocating that those that are sexist be called on it.

Atheism does not. There are secular structures of a similar nature, but they are not part and parcel of atheism. (Such as secular humanism.)

is the same as the leadership of mainstream religions.

It's not even close to the same.

What is wrong with them? They're sexist, homophobic, and many are child rapers. Disgusting!

It's a weak fallacy by the way. One might reasonably suggest that those who argue for something they themselves do not practice, are "hypocrites." Which would in turn cast doubt on their sincerity, and the accuracy of their reasoning.

This indeed was one of the main arguments against religious conservatives or Pharisees, by Jesus. He warned they were hypocritical.

So in ignoring this standard aren't you, Rug, hereby abandoning a major element of the Bible, Jesus, and the Catholicism that you claim to support?

Isn't that ... hypocritical?

at all or make really lame excuses for it or deny that it is even happening.

I've seen some remarks on DU about the women who are sounding the alarms that have appalled me.

It merits attention.

BTW, I also find it disturbing when people deny misogyny in other groups as well, so making a comparison is not really in order.

You have got to do a stand up routine. You outdo yourself every day.

This is the same old story from the same Catholic who denys flat out that his church has all this crap and more enshrined in its dogma who you jump to defend (btw, he postex a logical fallacy argument, you gonna call him out on it? Didn't think so)

Whatever issues you have with other members really has nothing to do with me. I don't feel the need to include anyone else in the conversation I am having with you, including anyone who might be your family member.

I would much prefer to just amuse you.

And yet you're only ever "disturbed" enough to comment on it in rug's ops about atheists.

"I find it more disturbing that some don't take this seriously at all or make really lame excuses for it or deny that it is even happening."

When was the last time you criticized the RCC for its continued oppression of women?

Or even acknowledged it?


"I've seen some remarks on DU about the women who are sounding the alarms that have appalled me."

Are you appalled by people who defend the Catholic Church's misogynistic policies in this forum? Who don't think complaints about institutionalized child sexual abuse in the Vatican belong in Religion? Who praise the nuns that neglected and starved orphans for decades in Ireland? Who refuse to acknowledge its persecution of gays?


You're right, a comparison is not in order because there is nothing to compare, you reserve all of your outrage for rug's daily targets while ignoring and excusing the problem in your own backyard.


BTW, I find hypocrites who turn a blind eye to the RCC's misogyny while condemning individual non believers for sexist behaviour disturbing.