That is slowly diminishing, thank goodness. I've seen less of it over the years I've been alive as time passed. But, it's not surprising that it still exists. We live in a patriarchal world. That didn't even start to change until I was an adult, and that change has only really been obvious in the past quarter of a decade. It's still moving too slowly.

So, it's no surprise to see evidence of it in all aspects of life. Things are slowly getting better, but we still have a long way to go.

Few situations, though, display misogyny more than ancient, long-established religious organizations, like the Roman Catholic Church, the various Orthodox denominations and other groups like the Latter Day Saints. In them, the patriarchy is part of official doctrine. Change will be a long time coming in such organizations, if it comes at all.

Are Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris misogynists? Sure. But the people who associate themselves with atheism are far less so. Misogyny is slipping away these days. There's no longstanding doctrine to support it, and women are no longer willing to tolerate it.

So, there's nothing surprising at your link.

By the way, that article is four years old. Did you not notice that? This article has been linked to many times on DU. We know about it.

Dawkins and Harris are, in my view, extremely intolerant of many people and things.

Atheists, for the most part, are not joiners. Some are, of course, but a couple of older guys do not speak for atheism. They speak about their own atheism. So do the atheists here in the Religion Group, and elsewhere. I can guarantee that neither Dawkins or Harris speak for me about anything. Both lost my respect quite a long time ago.

Are they "intolerant of many people and things?" If you say so. I pay little attention to them, though. They have a small following, but do not represent the thinking of more than a small minority of atheists.

I did not use any word resembling "universal," either. Please don't attempt to put words in my mouth.

We can speak for ourselves, guillaumeb.

Find me someone claiming that secularism is immune to misogyny.

Put the straw down.

Apparently Dawkins is not just intolerant and ignorant to theists.

That's the trouble with those.

Did you mix up Dawkins and Krauss?

But given all of the evidence of Dawkins' hostility toward women, I understand your tactic.

As you note, there is a vast history of misogyny among the religious (indeed mostly stemming from the religious texts themselves).

There is no such strain of misogyny in *atheism* as a concept, since it is in fact only a concept and not a *thing* or *group*. There is no atheist *scripture* that says to treat women worse than men.

As for New Atheism (a group, not just a concept), I agree that New Atheists can indeed also be misogynists. That said, due to the persistant misquoting of New Atheists in publications like Salon, I think we should always go further than just reading the article, and rather go back to the words of Dawkins and Harris themselves (in the form of transcripts). Even if they are misogynists, however, it doesn't really affect New Atheism as a whole, for they are not purporting to teach others how to live their lives in the way that priests and religious texts are.

Furthermore, in a more general view, it seems to me that countries with low religious fundamentalism are far ahead in terms of also having lower amounts of misogyny.

Like misogyny and intolerance.

Last edited Wed Feb 28, 2018, 08:04 AM - Edit history (1)

It is true that *individuals* can be misogynistic, both atheist and religious individuals.

My point is that there are some religions that include misogyny in their scripture and their church structure and dogma. On the other hand, since "atheism" has no scripture or dogma (as it is not a religion), there is no overarching structure to convey misogyny to atheists.

Thus, atheists and others can criticize, for example, the Catholic Church for being a misogynistic institution in some ways, whereas it is impossible to criticize atheism for the same thing since really atheism is just an idea that there is no god and doesn't contain any other dogma or commands.

Abusers and misogynists and others can always find excuses and/or justification for their actions. But the vast majority of people are not abusers.

...and I have a strong suspicion you don't either.

Atheists and agnostics don't grow up in a vacuum. They are raised in the same society as everyone else. They are exposed to the same biases and social norms. They are just as capable of being blind to their male privilege. It is nonsensical to suggest that atheists are immune to gender biases, or that ridding the world of theism would solve the problems of misogyny and sexual violence.

Of course, no one is suggesting it would.

No one has claimed that only religious people are misogynistic. That is a completely bogus claim you are arguing against. I understand it's easier to do that, I mean you do it all the time, but no one is going to take you seriously doing that.

What is unique about many religions, though, is that misogyny is written in to their foundational holy texts - in words that many adherents feel come from their god itself.

misogyny is a human problem, like violence and intolerance.

And when some suggest that theism is equivalent to psychosis, it is obvious that some have an agenda that involves attacking religion and theists.

religion makes it a god problem. Which is an entirely different thing to people who think god's word and god's law outweigh's man's

As I pointed out. Trotsky also has issues with conduct from 1700 years ago.

misogynists who get their authority from the lord and creator of the universe, or misogynists who get their authority from Richard Dawkins?

This is not a trick question.

And what motivates it is patriarchy. Dawkins is merely one of many. He claims no spiritual authority, but his misogyny is just as hurtful.

You can wail about non-believers all you want, just makes you look petty and bitter.

I do like Tom Petty, but I cannot find the group "bitter".

You're in the Religion forum. Strange you need to keep being reminded of that.

Why don't you take it up with them instead of attacking all atheists as if we were a hive mind? You're broadbrushing, gil.

is just a reflection of society in general.

Or only when religion promotes misogyny homophobia racism etc?

As does politics. Slavery was once politically and morally acceptable.

Who knew?

Misogyny may be a universal issue, but it takes religion to raise it to an art form and a motive for slaughter.

That was long ago, and it was politically and morally acceptable then.

The above was from Apologetics 101

He shook his said and said, "It was a terrible thing to do. Most of those women were innocent."

There is no doubt that there are individual misogynists in every field and pursuit. As for institutional misogyny, the longevity record appears to be held by the Roman Catholic Church, which has discriminated against women since its beginnings. Atheism has no general organization at all, so any misogyny among atheists is an individual thing.

Even the United States government has a long history of misogyny, which is only now slowly being corrected. Institutional misogyny is a serious problem in many ways. Individual misogyny does not rise to that level. It is an individual thing.

Which do you think is worse, guillaumeb, institutional misogyny that has been in place for centuries or some guy who is a misogynist?

I think the answer to that is quite clear.