Mars Needs Women!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And apparently, so the atheist "movement'.

[leo-rcc]

Interesting, as we just had a major fallout over sexism on AF.ORG over something similar.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, I do recall some "feminists" alleging that "logic" and "western ideas of rationalism" are inherently sexist and racist. A 2 second google search...."Emotions not only are not strictly feminine, appealing to emotions should not be dismissed through a sexist belief that logic is better." http://challengeoppression.com/2010/01/ ... -advocacy/ - the "sexist" belief that logic is better? Logic IS better, at reaching logical conclusions. It's not "sexist..."

And, "OURCE 1, FEMINISM. Feminist critics are right that the questions scientists have asked and even the answers they have given have frequently incorporated sexist assumptions. Moreover, it's certainly true that women scientists have been excluded, relegated to lesser opportunities, or cast in a peculiar light if they succeed against the odds. Science is often sexist." http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/digitalfordism/ ... albert.htm Apparently, there is a belief in some quarters that rationalism and logic are "sexist," and obviously as such would be exclusionary toward women.

From the same google search - there is a course taught at Dartmouth which explores feminism and science:

"This course examines the relationship between feminism and philosophy. The focus is on such questions as: Is the Western philosophical canon inherently sexist? How should feminist philosophers read the canon? Are Western philosophical concepts such as objectivity, reason, and impartiality inherently masculinist concepts? The course may focus on either the ways in which feminists have interpreted great figures in the history of philosophy (e.g., Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Nietzsche), or on the ways in which feminists have rethought basic concepts in core areas of philosophy (e.g., epistemology, ethics, metaphysics, political philosophy, philosophy of science), or both." http://www.dartmouth.edu/~reg/courses/desc/phil.html

So, the fact that the question is asked in an Ivy League college course implies that there is an argument that YES, indeed, "concepts such as objectivity, reason, and impartiality [are] inherently masculinist concepts." I.e. sexist.

That being the case, I think we find that atheism is a "rationalist" concept. People tend to argue atheism with logic, reason, and objective premises. The fact that women do not tend to reach out and participate in the atheist movement might lend credence to the assertion that the underpinnings of atheism are, in fact, sexist.

Just a thought.

[leo-rcc]

Check this article if you have the time.

It's called "White male atheists, why you need to check your privilege at the door."

http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-bost ... t-the-door

[Coito ergo sum]

Check this article if you have the time.

It's called "White male atheists, why you need to check your privilege at the door."

http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-bost ... t-the-door

Interesting article. I wonder if any women here can shed light on this thing the author said:

As a woman, I came to realize at an early age through various experiences that I would not be treated the same as men. I eventually realized that not only will I not be treated the same, but there are things I will experience that are uniquely tied to being a woman, which ultimately alters the way social issues are viewed through the eyes of men versus women.

The author did not provide examples of how she was not treated the same, or what things she experienced that were uniquely tied to being a woman. I wonder what those things are. I'm certainly familiar with women being treated differently than men. I treat women differently than men. I don't shake their hands as firmly, because they tend to have slighter builds. I tend to be more gallant and hold doors and lift heavy things for them. I still stand up when a woman enters the vicinity, but I don't care to do that if a guy shows up. I tend to be more pleasant to a woman, and flirtier. I also tend to bend over backwards to give women an opportunity to speak when we're in our atheist group, whereas I let men fend for themselves and assert their own space in the conversation.

I wonder what a woman's perspective is on being "treated differently." What is the perception?

EDIT: let me add a correction/clarification - on a re-read of the article, I found I had missed a couple examples of the disparate treatment the author wrote about: (a) men give as a reason for women not being atheists that they are not as intellectual as men and won't consider religion through "reason,"; (b) men argue logically for women's "personal responsibility" in certain situations to avoid rape, which the men say are logical/rational, but which the author says are sexist and contribute to a rape culture.

[Coito ergo sum]

Thinking about the article leo-rcc linked to, I find it fascinating. The most fascinating part of it, to me, is the fact that I've come away from the article not really knowing what the author wants of me - the straight, white, male, atheist.

I think I get what she's saying about the rape arguments - we've had some of those here on rationalia and/or on the old RDF forum - debates over personal responsibility in that sense, and whether it's blaming the victim, etc. I wasn't sure how that links up with atheism though, exactly, as opposed to sexism in general. And, the issue of men saying women aren't as intellectual or not using reason (being more emotional) and therefore clinging to religion more readily -- I find it hard to believe women in general are kept from being atheists because of what men think.

I mean - she's talking about all this "privilege" that we supposedly have, but I'm not seeing it. She writes in her article that it's common for us white males to not see it - we don't get it. So, I'm willing acknowledge that it may be there and I don't get it - but, I didn't find that her article conveyed exactly what that is.

I think some input from some other women explaining the issue might be helpful. How can we behave better to encourage women to join our movement.

I remember a while back when I was helping handle a group of atheists that would get together periodically, I practiced affirmative action with women. I found our group was heavily male - like 10% women. So, I would go out and about online and in person and whenever I had the chance I would try to sell women on the group. I would send out more invites to women than men, if I could, and I would follow up carefully with women to make sure they felt welcome. It worked to some degree.

What I found in my experience was that a much lower percentage of women really want to get together with a group and talk about religion, atheism, agnosticism and politics tangential to those topics. Among my friends, men are far more willing to engage in debate, banter, argument, and discussion not only about atheism and religion, but also politics. I have found that women are not nearly as likely as men to want to argue over a political candidate or political issue.

In my experience, the issue keeping women from joining the atheist movement was not so much the attitudes and words of white, male atheists, but the attitudes and personal preferences of women. I think most women I run into just don't place as high importance on it, and are just not as interested in it.

Any thoughts?

[Bella Fortuna]

I don't have time to read all right now, but bookmarking to come back to.

[Svartalf]

CES, are we on the same wavelength if I say that what I got from that article is that this woman is a rabid specimen of the kind that gives feminists a bad name?

[Coito ergo sum]

CES, are we on the same wavelength if I say that what I got from that article is that this woman is a rabid specimen of the kind that gives feminists a bad name?

No. That's not what I got at all. I read an article that appeared thoughtful and sincere, looking to genuinely convey what she thought were reasons why the atheist movement is thought of as sexist and racist - and exclusionary to women and minorities. I didn't get any rabidity. I just really think that this issue kind of crystalizes for me the notion that sometimes our perceptions of a given situation or issue are so fundamentally different that it is even hard to know if we are talking about the same thing.

That's what's so fascinating about it for me. I want to see what she's saying, but I really don't. I can empathize with the issue, because one of the things I noticed when I was running a group of atheists that got together was the dearth of females. I tried hard, and sincerely, to do some "affirmative action" in that regard, and really welcome and include women. But, I absolutely noticed that there is a vast statistical disparity between the number of males and the number of females that participate in the group.

I had concluded that women just aren't as interested in the topic, or in discussing the topic as men are, for some reason (probably for the same reason that women aren't as interested in involving themselves in political arguments and banter). But, the author of the article basically tells me that's not it - that women ARE in fact interested in being part of the movement, but that white male attitudes and privilege are resulting in women not participating. I would truly love to understand that perspective - because I really don't get it (which, again, is what the author says that I, as a white male, do - we don't get it). So, I want help in getting it.

[Svartalf]

OK, so I'll have to go back to it tomorrow... I really did not get anything from her article beyond to PC the privileged white male into submission through shame at being what he is. I don't think I'm clear headed enough now to try for a clear headed reread.

[Coito ergo sum]

Women aren’t socialized to defend their beliefs with the same vigorous and “militant” zeal expected of atheists, and proposed that the movement make space for traditionally feminine characteristics like “story-telling [and] empathy.”

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2010/11 ... for-women/

[Coito ergo sum]

The Woman Problem
Category: Equality • Feminism • Godlessness • Skepticism
Posted on: June 29, 2010 10:22 AM, by PZ Myers

It's an odd way to put it, I know, but it gets your attention. I could have called this the Atheist and Skeptic Problem, which is more accurate, but leads people to start listing all of our problems, starting with how annoying we are, and just for once I'd rather not go down that road. So here's the Woman Problem, and it's not a problem with women: it's a problem with atheist and skeptic groups looking awfully testosteroney. And you all know it's true, every time I post a photo of some sampling of the audience at an atheist meeting, it is guaranteed that someone will count the contribution of each sex and it will be consistently skewed Y-ward.

Why? And what are we going to do about it?

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010 ... roblem.php

[Robert_S]

Women aren’t socialized to defend their beliefs with the same vigorous and “militant” zeal expected of atheists, and proposed that the movement make space for traditionally feminine characteristics like “story-telling [and] empathy.”

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2010/11 ... for-women/

I do not like to be pigeonholed and so I will refrain from doing so to women. Besides, there is plenty of room outside of theism. To think that I can "make room" would seem arrogant and paternal.