The world of active atheists, agnostics and skeptics is a testosterony place. By “active” I mean those who attend gatherings and conferences about skepticism. Some people I admire in the skeptics’ corner of the blogosphere have been talking about the dearth of women in the community and wondering why that might be.
The skeptic community exists within the wider community; it’s not immune from the patriarchal forces that result in disproportionate male representation in any other sphere (besides explicitly “female” ones). A lot of people in the skeptic community work in scientific fields, and most people working in the sciences are male. Women are punished more harshly than men for questioning religious dogma or coming out as disbelievers. They are entrusted with the religious indoctrination of their children, as well, and are considered bad mothers if they don’t at least take their kids to religious services.
Skeptifem posits that female skeptics are too busy.
They are disproportionately dealing with low pay and poverty, and with child and elder care. This means working more employment hours with less pay, and working for free much more often the rest of the time. They are volunteering. They typically don’t have time to sit around and ponder things like philosophy and science.
I think there’s something to that, of course. But crafting conventions are overflowing with women. And women participate in religious groups. Perhaps the tangible benefits women get from being active in the skeptic community are not great enough to make up for the sacrifices. I don’t know the precise answer(s).
But whilst perusing the comments on this post by the wonderful PZ Myers, I thought, “I don’t want to pay to hang out with (some of) these people either.” Skeptic men think of themselves as a highly enlightened bunch. They pat themselves on the back for not being sexist because god told them to be. No, they’re just sexist because science demands it. Having just finished reading The Mismeasure of Man, I’m even more, uh, skeptical, you might say, of claims regarding women’s alleged nature as compared to men’s. Maybe female skeptics don’t want to be treated like pieces of meat then lectured about powerful male hormones when they came to hear a lecture about atheism.
The problem is that skepticism is an ill-defined category. You don’t have to be agnostic or atheistic to be a skeptic. A skeptic is someone who simply does not take things at face value and believes faith can be as misleading as it can be enlightening. Unfortunately, this tends to make men insufferable, because they already have large egos, and becoming a skeptic is like a validation that they are “smarter than everyone else.” The skeptical community is not unlike MENSA — has a high opinion of itself for no fathomable reason.
Hmmm, interesting topic! I’ve never even thought about women in the “skeptic” community, though I guess I’d consider myself part of that. I’m an atheist-leaning agnostic (probably should jump into the atheist side already) and whatever I do read is pretty much from men. I will definitely have to explore this further.
NefariousNewt does make a good point above, though, that “skepticism” is ill-defined, but as I said, even within just the atheist group, I don’t think I’ve seen/read much from women.
I’m sure that it doesn’t help that the most visible members of their group, (Dawkins. Hitchens. Well, everyone you ever see talking about atheism is public except for Stephen Fry, who seems lovely.) come off as total assholes.
“Maybe female skeptics don’t want to be treated like pieces of meat then lectured about powerful male hormones when they came to hear a lecture about atheism.”
Hit the nail on the head for me, right there. I stopped participating in online discussions of skepticism in various venues after being told I was not a real skeptic if, say, I didn’t embrace Larry Summers, because he’s pro-science. So I decided that skepticism was only going to be a minor part of my identity and focused my attention elsewhere, such as on science and feminism. I figure that I might as well just be an assumed skeptic (a safe assumption to make in my field) and fight those battles only when actively confronted by them.
And I didn’t even realize that there were atheist conventions until now. Wow. That is something I would have enjoyed when I was 14, but sounds unspeakably unpleasant now.
I like Greta Christina’s blog. She’s feminist and atheist, among other things.
@Preeti to be agnostic is to answer a question about knowledge – Do you think that a human can answer a question about ultimate reality? to be atheist is to answer a question about belief – What do you believe to be the case about ultimate reality?
Agnostic/atheist terms don’t contradict and are not mutually exclusive.
I’m an atheist but have never got involved in any kind of community (in fact, I was only vaguely aware that there were atheist conferences and things – do you go to them? What are they like?)
I’m not surprised that women are less strongly represented there, though, for the same reasons you outlined. I would add to your point about women being under social pressure that women are socialized to please and that most people who ‘come out’ as an atheists have to face a lot of disapproval from their families.
Bellacoker, I agree that Hitchens is an ass but I actually find Dawkins to be a fairly sympathetic character when you see him speak or in interviews. When he’s portrayed in the media it’s as obnoxious and self-righteous, but he’s always unfailingly polite in conversations with people who disagree with him, even if he challenges them strongly.
I’ve never been to a conference about atheism/skepticism. I considered finding a secular humanist group to join a few years ago but the biggest obstacle I faced was my own laziness.
Like you say, Endora, women risk more when they speak their minds. I’ve observed that men don’t care as much about offending and/or alienating people with their views and opinions, which might be why they’re more willing to be out and proud and active atheists.
re secular humanist groups: (I’m about to go on a tangent) I’m not convinced that joining a secular humanist group is very productive. I’m sure it’s not for me. I heard a little talk about the major function of any church group being conformity. If I am going to replace a church group with another that enforces conformity or even seems to, then, thanks but no thanks.
Also, I am convinced that I don’t need a support group to illustrate and discuss morality with my kids.
@rodriguez Oh, I totally agree. I often think that the whole debate between atheists and agnostics is often hmm, ridiculous in a sense, because if both groups defined what their beliefs (non-beliefs?) were, they would probably be the same, if not very similar. I do try to stay away from those types of debates because I don’t really feel they are helpful or contribute to anything in a larger sense.
I do like the way you put it though – answering a question about knowledge vs. answering a question about belief. I don’t think I’ve seen it put that way before.
This reminds me of the saying “the Devil can quote Scripture to suit his purpose.” The Patriarchy will always try to maintain its stranglehold regardless of whether its disciples are religious or not.
@bellacoker: Yeah, the most vocal atheists out there are just as douche-y as religious leaders, just less socio-politically powerful.
you know what else occurs to me…
I don’t read PZ Myers comments even tho I do read the blog. It seems that the atheist community’s attitude towards women is similar to certain (pseudo) feminists’ attitudes towards racism, heterosexism, ableism, etc: “not of interest to me”.
If certain members of the atheist community have no interest in being an ally to combat oppression in whatever form it may take, it makes it harder for all of us humans.
If a typical atheist commenter really wants to promote atheism as a counterbalance to all of religion’s errors, then HE has to face up to religion’s role in the life of women, and what benefits HE has gained from the society that results. Until HE does that, then all I see are a bunch of school boys being snarky about another bunch of school boys.
I never thought Dawkins came off douchey, btw.
Endora: Ooops, sorry.
I think you’re right about ladies being more at risk, that’s probably why the marijuana legalization movement is also peopled with a lot of white guys.
rodriguez, couple things.
Some people do feel they need a community to help them navigate the world as non-believers. Especially those of us who were raised in very religious households. At one point I thought it would be nice to make some non-theist friends and talk about all the stuff going through my head in an organized setting. I never did but I can certainly see the appeal.
Second, facing up to religion’s role in women’s lives is the problem. That’s where thinking about women begins and ends for a lot of skeptic guys. “Religion will be mean to you so you should be on our team!” They never examine the ways society oppresses women without religion, however.
yeah we have touched on the issue of secular humanists groups before here and elsewhere … it’s not 100% on topic here, but I’d love to hear some other opinions, maybe in another post. My opinion is radical, I admit.
Hey, I just read The Mismeasure of Man too! That book is incredible.
@SarahMC: I think Dawkins is significantly less douche-y than most, although frankly, I dislike anyone—religious or atheist—who’s so intent on telling others that their beliefs/culture is false.
Speaking of non-religious communities, Society for Ethical Culture is pretty similar to what you’re describing. They’re very popular in the NY area and I like them a lot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_Culture
and <3 …you Harpies do realize how wonderful what you have here is…the commenting community elsewhere…not so much.
I can only speak from my experience in the philosophy community, but for the most part, those who identify as skeptics here are really very prone to behaving like assholes. This is over and above the sort of clueless-when-it-comes-to-social-conventions tendencies of most men in philosophy.
But I suspect that the causal mechanism goes in the opposite direction than you’re suggesting. I don’t think skepticism makes people into assholes. I think that people with the tendency/desire to be assholes are attracted to skepticism because they think it implies that they’re smarter than all the other people who’ve been duped into believing something. So sneering and interrupting or talking over others is pretty much their default mode, and skepticism just gives them a justification for behaving so badly.
For these reasons most women in philosophy just avoid skeptics altogether (in my experience). And besides, anyone who’s spent much time studying Philosophy knows that there’s a lot of stuff you just have to take on faith in order to function in the world (a bus won’t hit me when I step off this curb, a meteor won’t fall on my head when I leave the house…), so extreme skeptical positions just seem sort of neurotic and outdated.
“But I suspect that the causal mechanism goes in the opposite direction than you’re suggesting. I don’t think skepticism makes people into assholes.”
I … really hope I didn’t give that impression because I don’t believe that’s the case at all.
I’ve always gotten the impression that the vast majority of atheists and whatnot have no interest in organizing (I certainly don’t). Since the few places they do tend to organize are already overwhelmed with guys, more guys are going to be attracted to them and any events/discussions will become more guy-centric. I don’t buy the “too busy” argument at all – the “too annoying and sexist” makes far more sense. Other atheists being obnoxious has always challenged my mindset more than people of outside beliefs.
That said, are there many high-profile skeptic women out there? The only one I can think of is Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and none of the Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris types who sit around trying to convince other people to try atheism.
(Side note: I googled around looking for the percentage of women atheists after reading this post. All the top hits were “sexy atheist women!” and “atheist dating!” and “where are the available atheist girls??” etc. That seems to be the extent of much of the online community’s interest in including lady skeptics. Shocking.)
@SarahMC,
Yeah, now that I think about it I don’t think you suggested it. I think I’ve just heard people wonder aloud why skepticism makes people behave like assholes enough times that that’s the interpretation stuck in my head. And perhaps the fact that men are more likely to be socialized with the drive to constantly be one-upping the people around them makes them more likely to be active in skeptical circles.
Bellacoker: nothing to apologize for!
BeckySharper, you say ‘frankly, I dislike anyone—religious or atheist—who’s so intent on telling others that their beliefs/culture is false.’ But it isn’t really as simple as that, I don’t think. We as feminists are always challenging the dominant culture in our societies. We challenge FGM, which is a part of the culture of some African cultures. I’m sure I’m not the only one here who’s rolled her eyes when she reads about Scientology. Just because something is a part of culture doesn’t mean it can’t be wrong or false, surely?
I don’t follow a religion and certainly respect people’s rights to choose their own beliefs, but I do think that in a civilized society people should be able to talk about why they believe what they do, assuming they are approached in an open and non-judgmental manner. (If an atheist tells a Christian how stupid he is before asking him to explain his position, of course he doesn’t deserve a response).
And there are situations where I think beliefs absolutely should be questioned, as when it comes to teaching creationism in schools. Leave it to religion class or Sunday school or whatever – when I hear about people trying to force that on schools, I think they are not just living their belief privately, they are trying to force it, in the face of a mountain of scientific evidence, on others, and then I feel perfectly justified in saying that the scientific consensus shows they are wrong, and the scientific consensus is the best thing we have to work on when building our curriculum.
@Mer: yeah, most of the atheists I know wouldn’t be interested in organizing. I’m not either, but more because I tend to take the Groucho Marx approach to clubs than because I really have something against the idea.
@Endora: I do think that in a civilized society people should be able to talk about why they believe what they do, assuming they are approached in an open and non-judgmental manner.
Yes, fine, we can all agree on that, but that’s not what I was talking about. I’m talking about openly condemning people’s belief in God (or lack thereof) by saying it’s sick, false, delusional, etc. All of which is common when atheists talk about religion or when people of one religion talk about another. In my experience, arguing about whether religion is valid or not, or whose religion is more valid is nearly always done in exactly the OPPOSITE of an open and non-judgemental manner. If I had a nickel for every time some Southern evangelical told me I was going to hell simply because I was of a different religion than him/her, I’d be writing this blog from a villa in Tuscany.
A public-figure skeptic/atheist in the UK is Ariane Sherine; she ran the campaign for the “There’s probably no God; now stop worrying and enjoy your life” bus adverts, and edited the Atheist’s Guide to Christmas (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Atheists-Guide-Christmas-Various/dp/0007322615/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278627783&sr=8-1). But yep, apart from her all the well-known UK skeptics I can think of are men*. I would love to get involved in skeptic meetings – but I don’t have time. I’m too busy doing feminist and trade union activism (on top of working and running my own life), which I consider more immediately beneficial to a wider number of people.
*I think the President of the UK National Secular Society may be a woman, but I don’t like them that much; the Christmas message they sent out this year talked about “primitive” Protestants from Africa, amongst other stupidly-expressed, culturally-ignorant things.
I think Endora covered this, but I have to disagree with you, Becky, on your comment: I dislike anyone—religious or atheist—who’s so intent on telling others that their beliefs/culture is false.
For one, It doesn’t matter how beautifully, tactfully and gracefully and logically I tell someone else their cherised belief is wrong, it’s going to feel like an attack.
For another, men might say that their patriarchal beliefs/culture deserves the same benefit of a doubt you want to extend to religious beliefs.
Respect is due to the person, but no respect whatsoever is due to any idea that can’t be backed up.
And let me add parenthetically, that goes for public forums much more than one-on-one conversations, where, sometimes, there’s no point in discussing contentious stuff.
Okay, no idea why I thought NSS was female lead; a misremembering. The President of the British Humanist Association – which I am a fan of – is Polly Toynbee; but only 2 or their 12 trustees are women.
I think Rodriguez hit it right on the head by saying that when people’s beliefs are challenged they will always feel attacked.
I find religion a fascinating topic and am nosy in general – I like to find out what makes people follow the paths they do, regardless of what that path is. And for a long time I didn’t know what to believe about religion. The combination of these two circumstances meant that I would occasionally ask people their thoughts on all of this. When I would question what they said, they would often get defensive, even though the questions were based on curiosity, not animosity. The conversations often went like this: ‘why do you believe that?’ ‘I just do.’ ‘Well yes, but why?’ ‘Because.’, with each successive ‘because I choose to believe’ said in an annoyed tone. Sometimes it wasn’t like that – I’ve had some really good, memorable discussions on it – but I often felt like the discourse was just shut down, and I think it’s a shame that that’s so often the case.
Respecting religion doesn’t mean refusing to talk about it – in fact, the fact that I like to talk about it is really a sign that I do respect it as a powerful cultural force, even if I don’t believe in the supernatural.
@rodriguez: no respect whatsoever is due to any idea that can’t be backed up.
Neither the existence or non-existence of God can be backed up with empirical evidence or hard scientific data. Respect my right to my unfounded beliefs and I’ll respect yours.
Becky, the idea in question is not the belief in god or not. It doesn’t matter that the existence of god can’t be proved.
Here’s where rubber meets the road: any public policy, societal norm or opinion. Why it is, where it comes from, what basis in fact it has, what its effects are. That’s the part that’s worth discussing.
So again, respect for the person, but no respect for a whole category of beliefs, just because somebody likes them.
Rodriguez, most religions are based on a belief in deities. The existence of God(s) is the founding and guiding principle of those religions, so I don’t understand how you can say “the idea in question isn’t a belief in God or not.” Even atheism is specifically about the rejection of the existence of God—it literally means “without God” or “the absence of God.”
If you read atheists like Dawkins or Hitchens, they spend a great deal of time shooting down religious institutions—which, in many cases, I can get behind—but at the core of their argument is that there is no God, and all religions are false because they believe in something that does not exist.
Hmm, I hear that atheism is just as dogmatic as Christianity (for example) a lot, but I think that at least in my case, it’s not really true.
As the Beatles would say, whatever gets you through the night is all right…but I don’t think it’s really fair to say that lack of belief is as unfounded as belief. Here’s my view: I’m not convinced there’s no god. There could be one. I just think the probability is small and work off the assumption that we’re alone. Since I don’t actively believe, I call myself an atheist.
Is that dogmatic? I think it must be less dogmatic – and less unfounded – than thinking (for example) that someone who lived 2000 years ago in Palestine was born to a virgin and came back to life three days after being crucified. That’s making a whole lot more assumptions than the one rather small one you have to make to be an atheist…
yes. All of what you just said, is true.
So, if you can’t prove or disprove a god, but create institutions all around the assumption that there is one – that is a serious problem.
That’s the reason for their criticisms. We decide things, really serious, important things, based on ideas with nothing to back them up.
Not to say there aren’t obnoxious dogmatic atheists who think they have a monopoly on truth by the way – but I don’t think Dawkins is one, from what I’ve seen (his view seems to be the one I outlined above).
@Rodriguez: That’s the reason for their criticisms. We decide things, really serious, important things, based on ideas with nothing to back them up.
Both sides do that. Atheists have decided that their behavior is justified by the non-existence of God. And as this post points out, atheists can be dogmatic and obnoxious and discriminatory in ways that are remarkably similar to the behaviors they criticize in institutionalized religion.
I don’t care a single bit if people don’t believe in God. Doesn’t have a damn thing to do with me. All I ask is that people respect me in the same way. At the end of the day, they have no more empirical evidence for their beliefs than I do.
Becky, have you read Victor Stenger? He’s got some ideas about empirical evidence for the non-existence of god. Also, there’s a really difficult but fabulously great book
Nothing: A Very Short Introduction.
http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/nav/i/category/academic/series/general/vsi/9780199225866/R/browse+within+this+series/mathematics+%26+sciences/n/4294921802.do?sortby=bookTitleAscend
I had to read every line twice to understand it but it was very much worth it.
Regarding an abstract god of Spinoza, there is no evidence either way. But regarding the Abrahamic god, there is some good empirical evidence that it just isn’t so.
btw, you know this already – I’m not trying to convince you to see this in my way or any way, just putting it out there
me: That’s the reason for their criticisms. We decide things, really serious, important things, based on ideas with nothing to back them up. you: Both sides do that.
I don’t think that is true.
I especially doubt it in formal institutional situations where policies are made. I think in those formal cases, it’s not god exists vs. god doesn’t exist. I think it’s “My unfounded beliefs imply this” vs. “Our best science tells us this other”.
Here’s an example that’s close to my heart.
Position 1) We can’t decide where the bright line is before pregnancy in determining where life starts, so we choose the most obvious bright line, which is birth.
Position 2) Abortion must not be permitted at any time following conception. A human is ensouled at conception. This is my belief and must be respected, even though I have no evidence for the existence of a soul. I demand that policies be decided based on this cherished belief of mine.
>
sorry, s/b here the bright line is before birth
Here is my question: Is there anything other than a semantic difference between saying, “God did x” and “People who believe in God did x because they believe that x was what God wanted them to do”?
@bellacoker: Yes, a huge difference. Believing in God doesn’t mean you think all human actions are caused by God. I don’t think God did the Inquisition. Or the Crusades. Or 9/11. I think people did it because they believed it was what God wanted.
Being religious doesn’t mean believing human beings have no free will or agency. It’s actually quite the opposite.
@Rodriguez: No, haven’t read Stenger.
@bellacoker: Have you read The Evolution of God by Robert Wright? Because that question seemed to be one of his main points. Even if there isn’t a god, the fact that so much of the population behaves as if there is one influences humanity just as much as if there were a god, so we might as well say there is one. It was a really well-written book for the topic, even if the way he addressed the final question (Is there a god? His answer: yes; my takeaway: prolly not) was kind of circular.
(Full disclosure: he had two main points, and I believed the other one.)
I cringe at the idea of a skeptic convention as much as I cringe at the idea of going to Bible study.
I love this whole idea-a bunch of guys trying to mansplain the unexplainable.
Rats! I wish I could have contributed to the rest of the conversation but we still don’t have Internet at the new apartment (long story, grumble grumble) so I’m just getting online again.
I happen to think it’s very important for non-theists to talk about their lack of belief, science, why you don’t need “god” to live a moral life, etc. So much of public policy (in the U.S. and elsewhere) is based on superstition and the dogma of one particular faith. If we are to maintain any separation between church and state, those of us who do not believe in god (or who do but don’t want it influencing politics) must speak out and advocate for reality-based policies.
I was actually just reading an essay by Dawkins, in which he pokes holes in the creationists’ “god of the gaps” theory and a couple other tactics they use when pushing for the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. It’s important to understand how to refute their arguments if we are to gain any victories on that front, for example.
Just throwing this out there. There is an internet constituency, The Brights (http://www.the-brights.net/), made up of individuals who have a naturalistic worldview. My involvement with the group hasn’t gone beyond reading the newsletters, but I’ve found it to be very thoughtful and not dude-centric. It isn’t about telling religious people they are wrong, but following these principles:
**A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
**A bright’s worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements
**The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview.
A lot of what they work on is how to frame discussions about how morality doesn’t depend on a supernatural/religous worldview.
I’ll leave it at that – the website has plenty of info. Oh, and they are attempting to keep the name “Bright” free of association with the adjective “bright” – _not_ trying to imply that Brights are more intelligent than those who practice a religion. I don’t know that I agree it was the best choice of name, but that ship has sailed.
I think my biggest problem with the Atheist/Skeptic movement is the number of evo psych spouting Libertarian asshats involved. For a bunch of “skeptical” individuals, they sure do take, “But that’s the way men/women are!” at face value a lot.
I appreciate some of (as with all things) the merits behind agnostism and skepticism for the conversations and deductions it can bring about. That said, I feel a lot of today’s skepticism comes from laziness. Especially among younger atheists/nihilists/anarchists that, I suspect, have very little understanding of the weight of what it means to take on such ethos. I’m talking high school aged kids with no life experience and so-forth. (The antithesis to the “Jesus Camp” crowd) The argument of “religion is so tied and dependent around boring unquestioned doctrine” is becoming an unquestioned doctrine within itself. The media’s portrayal of the institution of faith is out to make headlines with sensationalism so how often will it speak of the good religion can do? Hope keeps viewers tuned in way less than the priest abuse cases or the Westboro Baptist Church. Meanwhile, people like Glen Beck are condemning religion and calling for people to quit their churches because he calls it a socialist organization for helping immigrants, housing the poor and feeding the hungry. Ummmm…What?
Maybe women are overlooked in the skeptic community because we’ve been sold this cocky “boys club” Bill Maher version of anti-religion while he snidely laughs (along with everything else he doesn’t agree with) at an age old system of explaining that which was unanswerable in a chaotic, disease-ridden, violent time. Religion may have been the cause of much suffering but has communism, capitalism, humanism been that gentle and lenient? Wherever you have people involved you will find corruption, injustice and brutality. Think what you will, but in an ever-increasingly consumerist world, maintenance of the soul is becoming a quickly evaporating activity.
Atheists however are an easy scapegoat without question in this country. (10 states actually include faith based questions on their civil service exams to bar agnostics and the like from holding public office) Have you been privy to some caliber of e-mails being sent around warning of this “atheist takeover” and always closing with “THIS NATION IS UNDER GOD, SPEAK ENGLISH OR GET OUT!!! DUHHHH. LOLZ!”? No matter how advanced our society gets, the barbarians seem to be always at the door. This country worships the God we trust on our money and, sadly, that’s about it.
@BeckySharper “Yeah, the most vocal atheists out there are just as douche-y as religious leaders, just less socio-politically powerful.”
Really? Really?
Here’s a few choice comments from the religious leaders:
“Most of these feminists are radical, frustrated lesbians, many of them, and man-haters, and failures in their relationships with men, and who have declared war on the male gender. The Biblical condemnation of feminism has to do with its radical philosophy and goals. That’s the bottom line.” – Rev. Jerry Falwell
“The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.” – Rev. Pat Robertson
Don’t get me wrong, I found Hitchens Vanity Fair article about why women aren’t funny, to be a bunch of sexist nonsense.
However, these religious leaders are responsible for untold horrors around the world. Don’t get me started about the Catholic Church, the Islamic governments in Saudi Arabia and Iran, the Anti Palestinian Israelis and the Anti Israeli Palestinians. When it comes to being douche-y these people are in a totally different league!