to go with it.

Best to you.

Hard to argue with that.

I wonder what came in second place.

You only said she was stupid.

perhaps some will answer in her stead.

Come on, man. Really?

It's worse.

Yet words retain precision. Accuracy is the best cure for mischaracterization.

Words can and do have different meanings, and if one is unsure about which meaning is being applied, one should simply ask for clarification. If said request is met with obfuscation, then all bets are off.

My point? Jumping to the most extreme and improbable definition before asking for clarification is neither practical or fruitful.


I'm trying, Ringo, I'm trying real hard.... You feeling me?

You and I can be some of the most caustic posters in here when we want to be, let's BE the change that we want to see.

You coming along?

But I really suck at turning the other cheek.

Hmm.. Back in the First Century, you know, when women were nothing more than chattel property, who did Jesus first seek out to announce that he had risen from the dead? It wasn't the Apostles, the Sanhedrin, or even a shepherd watching his flocks. It was to a couple of women on their way to visit his tomb.


Matthew 28: 1-10

Jesus Has Risen

28 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”

8 So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9 Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”

Women were and are a vital part of the Christian movement. Without them it would have died off before it ever even happened. I think it has to do with the way their brains are wired, which is very different from men. A woman looks at the world through a different lens and I for one am very grateful for that.

also enjoy positions of power, sometimes not. I think they should.

Re women having been in chattel positions in gospel times: I believe their position of women in pagan Rome, for instance, was superior to their position in the area that would later be Israel. The pagan women would have been more likely to enjoy education and property rights. There's been a good bit of study on this hard question, answers are hard to extract from minimal data.

Another area which is very illuminating is the contrast between OT heroines and NT heroines. Shouldn't we wonder why there isn't a New Testament book at least named for a woman?

because we aren't talking about why more woman aren't secular, we are talking about why more women aren't engaged actively in secularism. They just aren't. Why are men less interested in Fashion than women. Why are there far more men at Science Fiction Conventions than women. Why are men more interested in the minutia of technology than women? It's not that both genders aren't interested in these things, it's just that we have have some areas that appeal to one sex more than the other. If it is a concern, outreach would be a good idea.

Another factor is that as organizations grow, power grows. And that is where the suppression grows. Sexism was a very big issue in the antiwar movement as well. While Abbie Hoffman and the rest of the Chicago 8 became the public face of it, the contibutions of women were not recognized and frequently ignored.

institutional sexism in the Secular groups I have been part of. I just think the issues are not as important or interesting to woman as much as men.

Contraception laws come imediately to mind.

I don't think the issues are the problem; it may be the organizations.

it's about being active in the movements. The issue you bring up for example, I would assume women concerned with that would more likely join a pro-choice group than a general secular group.

You can wish it was the organizations for your own peace of mind, but it probably isn't the case.
As I have said, having actually been part of some of these organizations and working with woman members, I did not see this problem.
Rather than cherry picking a few items on the internet.

But you did wonder if women found secularism less important or interesting than men do. I can't see why that would be true.

science fiction and comic books less interesting than men? Why do men find True Blood and Twilight less interesting than woman. Why are there more woman in the pro choice movement than men, or the more men seem to be interested in the lasted tech news than woman?
And again we are not talking about just interest, we are talking about active participation in groups. Woman in general are not as active in these groups as men. Some woman are, but not in the same numbers as men.
I think you need to look at it as not if they find it interesting or not, but what their priorities for their time are.

though I would not 'gender' it so much (and though I suspect - hope - you don't mean it, you are treading into "pink is for girls and blue is for boys" territory with some of your examples . . .).

I am secular - atheist - whatever you want to call it. I am female. I am utterly disinterested in becoming a part of a 'movement' or 'group'.

I have a lot of female friends who are secular and feel the same way. I don't think it is a gender thing, really - beyond, perhaps, the idea that there may be something in this sort of active involvement that doesn't appeal to women. Doesn't really make sense, that - women tend to be more group oriented than men, overall - but it could be that what is being offered doesn't appeal. I can't answer to that part, as I am not a 'group' sort of person in any case.

Sometimes, it's pretty simple. I don't reject the "secular movement" because I'm more religious - or because I feel outnumbered by men - or any other overly analytical reason. I don't reject it at all - I just don't embrace it. I have better things to do.

the movement or group part doesn't appeal to you. Perhaps the way the groups have set up the activities just appeal to more men. I don't know. Not being in the "movement" doesn't reflect on the secular beliefs of men or woman in general.

I am not saying woman should like or do anything. I am just acknowledging that in our cultural the demographics for certain things weigh more for one gender or another. That there are far more men and boys at science fiction conventions doesn't mean women shouldn't enjoy science fiction and go to conventions, it just seems to appeal more to men.

To state that pink is mostly used for girls in this country and blue for boys, is an objective fact. It does not mean I think that is a good thing or it should stay that way. We must acknowledge the way things are if we are to move forward.

that's why I didn't point the finger (just wagged it a little) . . . your phrasing was leaning in the direction of a suggestion that I didn't really think you were making.

The bulk of those that participate in these organizations are male, white, straight, american born and relatively privileged.

The question is whether they represent the actual population of non-believers or whether they have created an atmosphere which is unwelcoming or even hostile. I'm going to lean towards the second option, based on other reports from women within the movement. The irony of throwing "privilege" in other's faces seems to escape some of the leadership.

And again, there is a problem here with using the term Secular Movement, which is not exclusive to non-believers. While more women may be religious, does that mean they are less likely to support secularism?

that they feel like they are able to publicly be part of these movements.

To act like there isn't privilege to being a theist in this society is just sticking your head in the stand. To be an out atheist carries a lot of risks that may be too much for those otherwise not privileged.

I have never seen an atmosphere of hostility to anyone but those that want religion forced into society.
Maybe it's that those minorities have causes closer to their lives to become involved in.

Those "reports" are a poor sampling of the secular movement as a whole.

The women within the movement who are complaining are just making it up?

but there is filtering going on. There are those in the media who look for controversy, there are those who oppose secularism that look for stories that make the movement look bad. It is not unlike the right wing echo chamber that keeps a story going.
I don't think the woman that have no problem in the movement would write something about how they don't have a problem, they are working on secular ideas.

It only takes a few "reports" (and I think these woman did have bad experiences and are not making it up) to make it look likeit is more wide spread than it actually is.

I have not read "reports" per se, I have been involved in groups and have found the woman were treated with equality, it really wasn't an issue.

That should be the way it is.

This is a growing and important movement, imo. If there are internal problems then they need to be addressed. What looks bad is the male leadership dismissing or even ridiculing them.

The growing secular/non-beleiver movement is guaranteed to have some growing pains and it will certainly have some enemies, but there are members here who self identify as atheists that confirm that there are some problems with sexism. The men who are blowing this off need to be confronted with that.

I wonder if this is isolated in a few groups and not others (as i have said, it's something I haven't seen)

I would also dismiss problems in online comments as anything more than the usual assholes who inhabit the internet.
I am sure they do not reflect the active groups and their membership. In this or any movement.

by this.

I was a member of a heavily male dominated professional association in which I was pursuing leadership positions. This is all way too familiar to me and I have no doubt that it is happening based on what I have read.

It needs to be taken seriously and addressed, imo. When it is dismissed as "the usual assholes who inhabit the internet", that is not going to do much to encourage participation by those who are experiencing it.

comments posted online by anonymous idiots. If there is a problem within a group, it certainly needs to be addressed.

Anne Gaylor and Annie Laurie Gaylor of The Freedom of Religion Foundation. They were "expelled" from American Atheists by Madelyn Murray O'Hair. They founded FFRF which now has a monthly newspaper and a weekly national radio program.
http://www.ffrf.org

http://ffrf.org/legacy/about/anne/tribute.php



I've met Vashti McCollum at an FFRF annual convention and she was a very kind woman who remembers every detail of her court case.

Oops! Three: Ellen Johnson of American Atheists.

Yikes! Four: Theodora Dolores Trent was instrumental financially and organizationally for the American Humanist Association.

I'm sure you can name at least four more women who have contributed to the secular movement.

It's a matter of what organizations welcome them.

Can you tell me anything about Theodora Dolores Trent? She was a relative and when I googled her this post popped up. I just joined so I can't private message. But I would love to hear anything that you know about her, thank you!

How?

Are you John's daughter? Or son?

If not, how are you related?

Released in July 2012, link below:

In May (2012) we published statistics related to the Census question: "Have you ever felt unwelcome, discriminated against, or harmed in the secular movement? Responding "Yes" were 11.4% overall and 14.4% of women..."

Most women respondents not currently active in the secular movement are aware of groups and events but do not participate. A smaller percentage were involved at some point but are now inactive. For both of these subsets, insufficient time is cited most often as the main obstacle to participation.

Other obstacles named by women outside the secular movement are inconvenient events; insufficient money; bad experience with group, person, or event; not a joiner; and lack of childcare...Although not the top response, lack of childcare was the one factor to emerge as a disproportionately women's concern.

Just 39.1% of all registrants submitting this Census form were women; yet women represented more than 61.1% of the "lack of childcare" responses. No other selection showed a gender imbalance this marked...

The more detailed figures below relate to women's responses to the question, "What are your reasons for not being involved in the secular movement?" Multiple responses are permitted, and this question is visible only to respondents who indicate that they are aware of the secular movement and do not currently participate.

Aware of organizations and events but have not participated: This subgroup represented 70.2% of all women submitting the form.

Insufficient time (60%) tops this list, with insufficient money (38%) in second place and inconvenient events (34%) in third.
Not a joiner (26%), lack of childcare (22%), and not really sure (20%) were also cited.
Notably, lack of childcare was the one and only response chosen more often by women than by other respondents.

http://www.secularcensus.us/analysis/2012/07-31

And for those keeping score - which organization funded childcare for women attending The Amazing Meeting (TAM) in July? The Richard Dawkins Foundation.