Does the media really care where the atheist women are?

I was so hopeful when I found Ms. Magazine’s piece “Will ‘New Atheism’ Make Room for Women?” It’s exciting enough when the media covers atheism (and is nice enough to put “New Atheism” in the silly quotes it deserves), but media coverage of female atheists is a rarity. Ms. Magazine has the potential to reach oodles of women who aren’t familiar with us atheist activists. If we want more women to be involved with secularism and skepticism and more atheist men to realize how many great atheist women are out there, we need coverage like this.

Then I actually read it.

To say it was disappointing is an understatement. It seems like this was the extent of the research the writer put into the article:

  1. Google “female atheists”
  2. Read titles on first page of results
  3. Play up posts that sound negative, downplay posts that are positive

Reading the articles you link to? Interviewing people? Pfft, what journalist does that? Writing a spin piece that will generate controversy and make atheists look bad will generate a lot more hits! Of course, I’m blogging about it… so congrats, Monica Shores, I guess you succeeded.

Just to prove I’m not some butt-hurt atheist afraid to acknowledge valid criticisms, let’s take this piece apart bit by bit, shall we?

If you’ve been following the rise of so-called “New Atheism” movement, you may have noticed that it sure looks a lot like old religion.

A warning sign after one sentence! The “atheism is a religion” trope is so overdone – if you really want to hear a rebuttal, go here.

The individuals most commonly associated with contemporary atheism—Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and Victor Stenger—are all male, white and, well, kinda old (69, 61, 68 and 75). Sam Harris, another popular figure who bears mention, has the distinction of being in his early 40s.

There’s no official definition of New Atheism, but the general consensus is that while atheists were once content to not believe in God by themselves, “new” atheists are determined to proselytize so that others join their disbelief. They can’t abide by tolerance of religion, because religion is so insidious a force as to warrant constant criticism. Though they dare not hope for eradication of religion outright, they have expressed the wish that a belief in God become “too embarrassing” for most people to admit.

Definite use of weasel words to put “New Atheism” in a negative light, but whatever, that’s the least of this piece’s problems. Let’s move on.

Given the immense harm many organized religions inflict on women through outright violence and institutional oppression, it seems women may have more to gain than men from exiting their faith.

Yes, exactly! Wow, is Ms. Magazine going to argue that more women should be atheists? Is it going to talk about atheist women who have made those arguments? Is it going to highlight female atheists who deserve more attention from the media?

Yet no women are currently recognized as leaders or even mentioned as a force within the movement.

Um… what? No leaders in the movement? How about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, highly successful author and woman’s right activist? Or Lori Lipman Brown, founding director of Secular Coalition for America? Or Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-founder and current co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation? Or Debbie Goddard, campus coordinator at the Center for Inquiry? Or Susan Jacoby, director of New York’s Center for Inquiry? Or Wendy Kaminer, Secular Coalition for America Advisory Board Member? Or Lyz Liddell, campus organizer for the Secular Student Alliance? Or Amanda Metskas, Head Director of Camp Quest? Or Ariane Sherine, creator of the Atheist Bus Campaign?

And those are just some of the “official” leaders. You just wanted forces within the movement? How about the dozens and dozens of female authors, journalists, bloggers, videobloggers, podcasters, and comedians who you just conveniently forgot about?

I think you get my point.

The lack of lady presence is so visible that Conservapedia commented on it by noting that Dawkins’ website overwhelmingly attracts male visitors.

Yeah, an article must be excellent when it’s using Conservapedia to prove its point.

One study-supported theory is that there simply aren’t as many female atheists as there are male, while another is that new atheism is “off-putting” to women. Earlier this year, journalist Sarah McKenzie suggested that 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.”

McKenzie’s article garned much less backlash than a similar piece by Stephen Prothero, who irritated female unbelievers with his call to promote the “friendly” and “gentler” voices of faith-abstaining women.

Or maybe Prothero was more criticized because his piece was published in USA today, which is the widest circulated newspaper in the United States, and Sarah McKenzie’s article was published in the Sydney Morning Herald, which has 2 million fewer readers than US Today. I simply hadn’t heard about her piece.

Atheist Ophelia Benson criticized Prothero’s assertion that women are “more apt to tell stories[…] than to argue” as being dangerously close to relegating women to “weakness and passivity.” In the Washington Post, Susan Jacoby tackled a few myths about atheism while expressing unhappiness with “Prothero’s view [that the movement consists] mainly of Angry White Men.”

Holy crap, the author finally mentions some female atheists! …Except she only does so in the context of them defending female atheists and rebutting sexist remarks, not all the other wonderful writing they’re known for. Because you know, the atheist movement doesn’t have any female “forces.” Just females who feel isolated for being female.

But the predominance of white male v
oices is one point Jacoby couldn’t and didn’t refute.

Um, maybe not in that particular article, or maybe not Jacoby… but the issue has been discussed endlessly. Yes, there seems to be a predominance of white males, but many of us have suggested ways to improve diversity, and it seems to be getting better, whether you’re looking at demographics of local groups or panels devoted to women’s issues at conferences.

A quick search for female atheists will pull up such depressing fare as “Dating Atheist Single Women” and “Top 10 Sexiest Female Atheists.” (There is also a list for atheist males.) Unfortunately, such an overtly sexist mentality is in abundance; the loudest complaints about the absence of atheist women seems to come from atheist males who want non-believing girlfriends. In one unintentionally hilarious and cringe-inducing post, a blogger’s musings on the small pool of atheist women devolve into racy pictures of actresses with helpful points like “I happen to like petite girls, but a lot of guys are into more curves,” and “I don’t know who this girl is, but she’s redheaded and hot” alongside a picture of a paid model clad in a “Thank God I’m an Atheist” t-shirt.

This isn’t even an accurate representation of her “quick search.” The first link is just some dating site, nothing that has to do with the atheist movement. The second list is pretty skeevy, but it’s also years old. When Common Sense Atheism made a similar list a couple months ago, there was an internet shitstorm of men and women alike calling him out for the sexist post. And you know what? He actually apologized and took the original post down. If that’s not progress, what is?

The third link about wanting non-believing girlfriends actually links to a dating-related post I wrote, and the rest of his discussion was asking how to make women feel more welcome. Not exactly a “wanting non-believing girlfriends” themed post.

And the fourth link? Congratulations for finding someone’s anonymous, personal blog that no one else reads as your example of a sexist atheist. You’re right – there are some atheists out there who are sexist, or shallow, or assholes. But there are also Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Scientologists that can fit in that category too. Maybe if that blog had belonged to one of those male “leaders” or “forces” of atheism and went uncriticized by the movement, then you’d have a point.

The rest of the links that a “quick search returns” are all pieces defending, promoting, or wondering how we can be more welcoming to female atheists. But that doesn’t fit her theme of “atheists are big fat sexist jerks,” so she apparently didn’t feel like including those.

Progressive bloggers have pointed out that prejudice is a major problem within the movement, but few mainstream articles have gone as far to suggest that sexism, let alone racism, among atheist males might be a factor in keeping women away. One rarely addressed aspect online and in print is the preponderance of scientists, particularly evolutionary biologists, whose rhetoric can occasionally become reductionist and cliched. (Daniel Dennett, one of the aforementioned movement luminaries, implied that women’s “biology” is the reason for their exclusion from church hierarchies, as opposed to the churches’ stigmatization of that biology.)

That progressive blogger? Greta Christina, who is very popular within the atheist movement. Why not mention her by name, call her an “atheist blogger,” or acknowledge that she’s a woman? That piece on racism? Rant from a random Christian blogger, rather then the recent panel discussion about Science and Faith in the Black Community that actually discussed what it’s like being an African American atheist. That third link? Random people on an internet forum. Again, apparently random people posting anonymously on the internet are a representation of “leaders” and “forces” of the atheist movement, but published female writers and leaders of organizations are not.

That final link “criticizing” biological and evolutionary arguments? Doesn’t actually refute or critique any of the things Dennett or Dawkins say, other than just generally being uneasy about evolution. As a feminist atheist evolutionary biologist…you’re going to have to do better than that.

Christopher Hitchens, the only non-scientist of the high profile bunch, is notorious for inviting accusations of misogyny and racism by alleging that women are fundamentally unfunny and referring to Wanda Sykes as “the black dyke.” American Atheists, an organization founded by a woman, appears to have entered an era of leadership primarily provided by white males. They also overwhelmingly favor white men for their magazine covers and everyone with a picture on the website, male or female, is white.

Follow the link. Apparently currently having a female VP and 4 females on a 18 member board is entering “an era.” 4 out of 18 is far from perfect, but it’s hardly entering some patriarchal regime. I guess Shores has psychic abilities to predict what American Atheists’ leadership will look like for the next ten years. That or she’s just conveniently ignoring all the organizations who do have diverse leadership (see above) and finding the worst possible example to further her own viewpoint.

Of course, atheist women do exist, as do atheists of color, and at least one (Ayaan Hirsi Ali) has written a best-selling book. Yet since the long-gone days of Madalyn Murray O’Hare (once the best-known U.S. atheist), none have the visibility and name-recognition of Hitchens and Dawkins. Sadly, there’s little indication that atheists are receptive to the suggestion that they might benefit from diversifying in color or gender. But unless they commit to fostering true inclusivity, they may continue to invite “deconverts” with one hand while pushing many away with another.

I find it incredibly ironic that she links to my long list of awesome female atheists, yet doesn’t make the connection that it means there are awesome female atheists who are active, appreciated members of the atheist movement.

The post on color? Adam Lee invited Sikivu Hutchinson, a well-known female atheist of color, to write a post to raise awareness for his blog readers. The post on gender? One of PZ Myer’s many posts pointing out how we need to make atheism more welcoming to women. Yep, that’s really “little indication that atheists are receptive to the suggestion that they might benefit from diversifying in color or gender.”

Do you really have any evidence of that, or is that just what you think from a cursory Googling? How about the Science and Faith in the Black Community panel I mentioned? Debbie Goddard’s talk on diversity in the freethought community? Greta Christina’s piece on what atheists can learn from the GLBT movement? How about PZ Myers and Hemant Mehta (a very well known non-white atheist you somehow didn’t include) who defend atheist women so frequently that I can’t even link to all of their posts that do so?

The community has reacted overwhelmingly positively to these pieces. I may get some trolls when I talk about feminism, but the vast majority of the responses are positive. Hell, I’ve been asked to speak specifically about women and atheism for at least four upcoming conferences so far. That’s not being receptive?

Sure, there are some atheists who are sexist. I just wrote a massive post about it, though I clarify that I think atheists are still less sexist than other groups. There’s room for improvement, but the movement is only getting more and more diverse.

But you know what I think is part of the problem?

You.

Not just you, Monica Shores. But all of the media. You love to write pieces that spin atheism in a negative light to generate controversy. A schism or disturbance in a movement is news, isn’t it? Or maybe it’s more personal biases that make you create a rotten, distorted image of atheism. I can only guess. But you know why female atheists aren’t as well known?

Because you don’t talk about them, even in a piece about female atheists.

If you ask “New Atheists” who are actively involved in the movement – bloggers, writers, student leaders – who their favorite atheists are, their lists are quite diverse. We don’t just ramble off the names of the Four Horsemen like drones. I’d tell you how much I love Friendly Atheist, and Skepchick, and Greta Christina.

You are the ones who are only reporting about the men.

Maybe people would start associating female, or racially diverse, or younger people with contemporary atheism if the media actually started mentioning female, or racially diverse, or younger people. We’ve already published the books, given the talks, written the blogs, and garnered attention within our movement.

It’s your move to develop the association.

Feminist blogging & putting atheists on a pedestal

You need thick skin to be a blogger – or really, to interact with people on the internet in general. The “Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory” sums up why pretty well. One way I keep my sanity is to not read the comments when people share my posts on sites like reddit, though sometimes I slip up out of curiosity. Let me just say, the Encyclopedia Dramatica article on boobquake is so unflattering, it’s flattering.

Usually I’m okay. But I’ll admit, sometimes the trolls and assholes can get to me, especially if I’m already in a bad mood for some other reason. I have a better time handling douchebaggery here, since my readers tend to eviscerate the comments reeking of stupidity. But it’s not foolproof.

If there’s one thing that will ensure I’ll have a bad day, it’s posting about feminism.

Until now, I couldn’t figure out why sexist comments here upset me so much.

It wasn’t because they were shocking – they’d fill up the antifeminist bingo card almost instantly. They’re so predictable that some of my readers will even preemptively comment with stuff like, “Misogynistic comments and oblivious sexism in 3… 2…1…” And when I see those tired arguments elsewhere, I usually just facepalm and move on.

It wasn’t because they were popular – I deal with a much lower frequency of assholes than “official” feminism themed blogs. And I have many supportive, understanding, and empathetic commenters who help restore my faith in humanity.

It wasn’t because they disagree with me – religious apologetics or conservative viewpoints don’t make me want to tear my hair out anywhere near as much.

It wasn’t because they were rude – in fact, the obviously trollish ad hominem attacks (usually about my appearance) are the easiest to brush off.

So, why? Why do the horrible comments about feminism literally make me want to scream, but equally horrible comments about atheism or science just induce mild frustration? I figured it out when sexist comments were recently aimed my way at an atheist meeting. It wasn’t the first time I’d heard such things in person, but it was the first time I’d heard it in person at a godless gathering. It clicked.

I expect better of atheists.

I’ve put us up on a pedestal.

It makes sense why I would think this way. Based on personal experience, non-theists do tend to be less sexist than the general public. For one thing, we lack the anti-woman rules perpetuated by most major religions. On the contrary, humanism is explicitly supportive of gender equality. It’s also hard to be a sexist skeptic, since there is no evidence to support sexist ideas. Ideologies that support gender equality and skepticism go hand in hand (even if you want to debate the name said ideology should have, because the “f” word gives you hives). And it’s hard to be an unskeptical atheist. Most atheists don’t believe in god precisely because they’re skeptical of religion and the supernatural.

Unfortunately, there are exceptions. Even though we don’t have sexist religious tradition, we can still pick it up from our surrounding culture. And not all atheists are skeptical, nor do all skeptics apply that skepticism to every area of their life.

So when I see some of my predominantly godless readership perpetuating the same fallacies, it’s frankly disappointing. I had deluded myself into thinking we were above that – that I could feel totally comfortable within this group – but I was wrong. If I toe the line and keep criticising religion, I’m fine. But if I dare to mention women’s issues, I’m effectively told to get back in the kitchen. It brings the worst out of people.

Some days it can really bring me down, but ultimately it just motivates me even more. It illustrates why combining my interests in feminism and skepticism is so important. It’s not just about showing women why atheism and skepticism is the better option for women, which I still would assert. It’s about showing skepticism why sexism is not rational, and making the atheist movement more welcoming to women.

I’m critical because I know we can do better. It may take a lifetime to find out, but hopefully I’m right.

Win a free copy of The Atheist's Guide to Christmas!

Usually I have a rule about No Christmas Stuff Before Thanksgiving, but I’m breaking it for this special occasion – the American edition of The Atheist’s Guide to Christmas is coming out next Tuesday, on November 2nd! It’s not just any godless book; I’m one of the 42* contributors! There will be a (hopefully) humorous chapter by yours truly called “Gifts for the Godless.” This is my first time having a creative piece published, so needless to say, I’m super exited. Not only will I be alongside people I look up to like Richard Dawkins, Phil Plait, and Simon Singh, but it’s for a good cause – all author advances and royalties go to the Terrence Higgins Trust.

November 2nd also happens to be my 23rd birthday. Since I can think of no better present for myself, how about I give a present to you? …And by that I mean “My editor is hooking me up with a couple free copies to give away at my discretion, how about I distribute them in a fun way?”

So, time for a contest!

Write new lyrics for an old Christmas carol that have a godless or scientific theme.

Rules:

  1. Post your entries in the comments. If you’re one of those people who’s still having trouble commenting, feel free to email your entry to me.
  2. Make sure to include an email address when you log in or in the body of your post. If you win, I need to contact you about a mailing address.
  3. Arbitrary bonus points will be awarded for things like humor, Blag Hag inside jokes, and singing your song or making a video.
  4. And really, my rules are lax – if you want to remake a famous Christmas-themed story or poem, or do godless lyrics for the dreidel song, I don’t care. Really, just make something in the spirit of the contest that you think I’d like, since I get to pick the winners.

Entries are due Monday, Nov 1st at 5pm PST. I’ll announce the winners the morning of the 2nd!

And remember, the American edition is different than the version that came out in the UK last year. There are a bunch of new authors, like me. So even if you have that version, you may want to check out the new one!

*Yes, that choice of number is intentional. Don’t you want to win it even more?

This is why women don't come to atheist meetings pt. 2

Guy: They’re [aka my boobs] attractive. I mean she’s attractive.
Me: …

Guy 4: *very politely and respectfully asks me about my views about feminism and men participating it*
Me: *has intelligent discussion with Guy 4 about feminism, describing the differences between first, second, and third wavers, and explaining that it’s called that partially due to history*
Guy 3: I thought feminism was just about hating men.
Guy 4: *starts talking to someone else*
Me: No, that’s just a stereotype. Some feminists may act that way, but that’s not because they’re feminists. Just like there are some atheists who hate religious people and act like jerks, but that doesn’t mean all atheists act that way. Feminism is about equality between the sexes.
Guy 3: Then why call it feminism? That implies men are better.
Me: Well, like I said, part of it is historical. But men are still more privileged than women, so it’s still called feminism.
Guy: But sexes already have equality.
Me: *head explodes due to the irony of this with his previous actions*

Now, I’m not saying all atheist guys are like this… Guy 4 was very nice to talk to. But I was the only female at this meeting, and if I didn’t have an incredibly high tolerance for this type of stupidity or an incredibly high desire to be a part of an atheist group, I probably wouldn’t come back. Not all guys are like this, but some of the good ones could have called out the jackasses.

This is why women don't come to atheist meetings

Guy: *holds up phone like he’s taking a photo of me*
Me: Uhhh… *moves aside* Are you taking a photo?
Guy 2: No, he’s comparing you to your boobquake photo.
Guy: *nods and grins* Nice. *shows another guy*
Guy 3: Lookin’ goooood.
Me: *blank stare*
Guy 3: What? It’s not harassment since we’re not in a workplace.
Me: >:/

This is right after I wondered out loud where all the other female members were, since I was the only one there.

First they stop worshipping Zeus, now this?!

There’s a new blog for Greek atheists called Atheia – available in Greek and English. Good to know some of my cousins are coming to the dark side.

Oxi theos kala!

…Yes, I know that’s not grammatically correct at all. That’s probably 5% of my Greek vocabulary. The other 95% is terms for food, or words that would help you acquire food. I have my priorities in order!

Firebrands, Comfrontationalists, Accommodationists, oh my!

These labels have been flung around the atheist blogosphere lately. Jerry Coyne seems to be one of the people most outspoken about “accommodationists,” those that think science and religion can happily get along. Coyne thinks science and religion are inherently incompatible – a view I happen to agree with – and explained it nicely in a piece for USA Today.

The opponents of accommodationists have been labeled “confrontationalists.” PZ Myers wrote up an excellent piece on why he’s a confrontationalist after a panel discussion at the Secular Humanism conference. Apparently the whole accommodationist vs. confrontationalist idea was interesting enough for the New York Times to do a piece on it. It’s the whole firebrands vs. diplomats thing all over again – I guess the media love seeing drama within movements. So why am I beating a dead horse?

Because I hate labels, especially crappy labels.

They’re not just crappy because typing accommodationist and confrontationalist over and over makes my hands cramp up – they’re simply horrible at describing what they’re trying to convey. We’re really dealing with two totally different topics: 1) The relationship between science and religion, and 2) Strategies for engaging people.

I would argue the way people think about science and religion falls (mostly) into a binary. There’s the camp that thinks science and religion are compatible, comprised of people like Chris Mooney, Eugenie Scott, Francis Collins, and Chris Stedman. They’re the people you’ll hear talking about “non-overlapping magesteria” and listing successful scientists who are also religious. Then there’s a camp that thinks science and religion are incompatible, comprised of people like Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Jerry Coyne, Hemant Mehta, and myself. We’d argue that religious belief is inherently unscientific, and simultaneously being religious and a scientist involves a bit of compartmentalization in your brain.

Notice how religious belief or lack thereof doesn’t necessarily put you in one category or another. You have atheists who believe science and religion are compatible, and atheists who don’t. And I’m sure there are religious people out there who think religion and science are incompatible – the type of theists who make whole museums devoted to poo-pooing science.

The problem starts when we try to merge this viewpoint with different ways people engage others, like labeling the other side as “confrontationalists.” We try to lump this binary with the idea of firebrands and diplomats. But I’m going to argue that it is not a binary, but rather a spectrum. And it’s not just a spectrum in that some people are more aggressive than others – some people can also span wide parts of the spectrum. To illustrate, here I compare myself with some bloggers I enjoy (mainly chosen since I feel the most familiar with their strategies, and didn’t want to misrepresent others):


Notice how I didn’t simply rank people along the spectrum with a single point. That’s because I think there’s a serious aspect people miss when trying to employ this false dichotomy: those who can engage people differently depending on the situation.

I generally hate labels, so I’m hesitant to add “Situationalists” to the growing list, but it describes some people the best. PZ is pretty much always a firebrand, but bloggers like Hemant and Greta can be more or less aggressive depending on the situation.

It also describes me best. When I was president of my student group at a conservative college in a religious area, I needed to be much more diplomatic. I could have run out guns blazing, but the club would have never gotten off the ground. Because I chose a more diplomatic route, we became as well respected as we’re going to get in our community. That’s what was needed in that situation – becoming established, and letting people know that atheists aren’t all monsters.

But here on my blog, I have a much different approach. I’m more of a firebrand. I’m not representing an organization, so I’m more able to speak my mind and “rally the troops.” Or as Rebecca Watson lovingly called me during our panel podcast last week, I’m “a dick with a purpose.”

I don’t think my range is broad just because I’m young and new to the movement – I can think of other student leaders who rank on either extreme of that spectrum. Lucy Gubbins of the University of Oregon’s Alliance of Happy Atheists is very much a diplomat, and JT Eberhard of the Missouri State University Pastafarians is very much a firebrand.

And I think they both are amazing – being a situationalist is not necessarily better. People should do what they’re good at. If you’re good at playing Bad Cop, there’s a Good Cop out there too. We just have to remember there are people like me who don’t neatly fit on either side.

Then why are we labeling all people who think science and religion are incompatible as confrontationalists? We have people like Hemant who clearly fall into that group, but are about as friendly and diplomatic as you can get. If I had to guess, it’s because most people who think science and religion are compatible also happen to be diplomats. The term “accommodationist” is the mish-mash of those two ideas – you don’t just think science and religion are compatible, but you want to use that idea as a way to reach people in a friendly matter.

So, can we nix the confrontationalists label? It seems to serve no other purpose than to paint those who think science and religion are incompatible in a negative, hostile light. Hey, maybe the reason why the arguments of accommodationists seem so wishy washy is because they don’t have enough firebrands on their side.

…Or maybe it’s just because they’re wrong. But that’s a whole other post.

Tune in to League of Reason tomorrow!

I’ll be one of “three hurricanes of female skeptical ass-kicking” participating in a discussion about ladies of skepticism tomorrow. I’m not sure what can make that endorsement any better, other than mentioning the other two hurricanes are Rebecca Watson and Ashley Paramore (healthyaddict).

You can tune in by going to League of Reason tomorrow, Sunday the 10th at noon PST (3pm EST). It’ll be live and two hours long, so let’s hope I don’t herp and derp too much.