Will Misogyny bring down the atheist movement?

[Spero]

It's a long article, but quite interesting about the problems some skeptics/atheists seem to have with women and asks why a progressive, important and intellectual community can behave so poorly towards its female peers.

www.buzzfeed.com/markoppenheimer/will-misogyny-bring-down-the-atheist-movement

I quote: The roots of today’s crisis can be found in the post-war history of the movement. The groups that make up the broader freethought community — atheists, who don’t believe in a god; agnostics, who are unsure; secular humanists, who seek to replace god-centered religion with a man-made ethical system; church-state separationists, who just want religion kept out of public life; and scientific skeptics, who work to overthrow superstition and pseudoscience — have two things in common. First, they oppose the hegemony of religious, including New Age, thinking in American culture. And second, they all have roots in very male subcultures.

So am I being naive in pledging allegiance first to humanism rather than feminism? Are the problems in male subcultures so deep rooted that my energies should be first directed at tackling those?

Interested to hear what other atheist feminists think.

Yonic, I am reluctantly coming to that conclusion. And he is a teenage hero of mine, so this is a struggle.

I have also enjoyed Shermer's books, 'How we believe' and 'Why People Believe Weird Things'.

I'm going to have to mentally separate out interesting books from the tossers that wrote them. This is not easy. I have attempted similar in the world of music, and it's hard to un-hear that little voice going 'yeah, but he's a complete wanker...'

I agree with all who say that there's no link between misogyny and atheism, it's just that where you get men gathered together, you will get misogyny bubbling very close to the surface just waiting to erupt at the slightest provocation.

Like a woman saying something.

Or wearing something they don't like.

Or just failing to give them a boner. Some men take that as a personal attack.

The atheist movement (if you can say there is such a thing) is like every other movement on earth except feminism: dominated and defined by men. Therefore, it's going to have a misogyny problem just like every other area of society.

A bit liker gamers or geeks, or the various brocialists like the SWP, #gallowaytherapeapologist and other assorted lefty-boys, footballers etc. No reason whatsoever why any of those groups should have a particular misogyny problem any more than any other group of men. But if they get together in a pack, suddenly it looks like it's that particular pack that has the problem when the problem is men in any pack. So you could take that article as a template and write about any group you like and changing the examples, you could come to the conclusion that this particular movement/ group has a misogyny problem.

Feminism joins up the dots.

For someone who is supposed to be as clever and rational as Dawkins, he does love a bit of false equivalence, doesn't he?

This is very depressing. So are you saying that simply gather together any group of men, and sooner or later they will reveal themselves to be misogynistic? Is it hardwired?

LOL I've got used to the idea so am not so depressed about it, but you're right it is depressing.

I suppose hard-wired is a good way of describing it as the hard wiring can be changed. Yes, boys are socialised to be misogynist; but they don't have to be, it isn't inherent, it's learned and it can be unlearned and we can socialise our sons not to accept misogyny as OK and reasonable, we can socialise them to notice it and acknowledge it and even challenge it if they choose to.

And some men are more open minded than Dawkins et al and will actually listen and learn and unlearn their misogynist assumptions.

There is hope!

I'd love to say Basil's posts were over exaggerated man-hating but experience tells me they're not. Not necessarily small groups of men, perhaps that are bound by women they know, but larger communities of men. Some of the things DS's classmates say amongst themselves are shocking.

A huge part of the problem, IMO, is that boys are socialised to identify masculinity as that which is not feminine. Masculinity and growing up to be a man, is seen as rejecting anything girly. Throw into that the common idea that as the gatekeepers to sex women hold a mysterious sexual power, the ability to reject a man and hurt his ego, and you've got the recipe for quite a fair bit of "bubbling" misogyny.

I understand the disappointment re the sexism within the atheist community though. I suppose as someone who suffered because so many of the oppressive attitudes towards women seemed to me to be sanctioned by God, i'd hoped that a deconstruction of that God would lead to a fairer system..

But it just goes to show that the misogyny found in religion comes from the communities of men that created them in the first place, not the religion itself.

But it just goes to show that the misogyny found in religion comes from the communities of men that created them in the first place, not the religion itself.

thanks messy, a good summary I think.

What I find intriguing is to think that in the ancient past there was at least one culture that revered women as the creators of life. I think I remember reading somewhere that once men worked out the connection between sex and a baby, they lost that reverence for women and ever society that followed was based on women being subordinate.

Which is just so odd. Why did that happen? Is there any kind of cultural/anthropolgoical explanation? WHY are so many women hated by so many men?

But it just goes to show that the misogyny found in religion comes from the communities of men that created them in the first place, not the religion itself. I like this.

Would you consider Jesus a feminist?

Given that all his disciples were male, I don't think so.

But then I have been told that he was very nice to Mary Magdalen who was a prostitute, ergo he was a feminist at least for his time.

Trouble is, my perception of 'religious men' is now of Boko Haram etc and they clearly have nothing but contempt and hatred for women.

Agreed. Spero, may I ask you, as thread starter, why atheism as a 'movement' is misogynistic? I don't understand what a poster upthread meant when they said that atheism is 'dominated and defined by men'? I also don't understand what 'brocialism' is (is it a play on, say, 'bromance'? Like, all men together?) or why Galloway is seen as a rape apologist. I am really interested in shaping a more informed opinion on these matters but don't really get the chance to discuss them in real life. Thanks.

Everyone on here seems to be highly educated and I feel a bit of an idiot.

I'll do the last one - Galloway described having sex with a woman who had not consented but had consented the previous night as "bad sexual etiquette"

It was wrt the Assange case.

Sicksquid - fwiw I started getting interested in this around the 'Elevatorgate' incident as it got a lot of attention from people I was following on twitter etc - Jon Ronson seems to be very friendly with Rebecca Watson. I was also identifying as a proud humanist and revelling in my superiority as a free thinker.

So it was a bit of a shock to read about what was happening. The debate seemed very much framed in terms of the 'atheist/skeptic/humanist movement', which I suppose is just a lazy and/or convenient shorthand to lump people together, like when newspapers talk of 'The muslim community' .

I can see that this could be really dangerous; I am a member of the 'disabled community' but I have very little in common with someone who has a visual impairment etc. You can't just lump us altogether as 'disabled'.

What troubled me most however was that there did seem - at least at the beginning - to be an orchestrated campaign of hate from prominent members of the 'movement' to the extent that RW and other women stopped going to conferences etc.

And the problem is, the lazy shorthand will continue and entire groups of people will be condemned for the actions of a few who are not representative in reality of the many.

Thanks, Spero. I didn't even know there were conventions for skeptics. After reading some of the appalling stuff written about Rebecca Watson (whom I had never heard of before reading this thread) I am at a loss as to why and how any singular person can generate that level of evil. Why do men speak and think that way? Who taught them? Who framed their logic?

I used to be a lapdancer many moons ago and, when I was repeatedly asked questions like 'do you take it up the arse?' from educated, middle class, white 'gentlemen' over the age of fifty, I was apoplectic. I was never less than apoplectic the more I was asked the same thing, over and over again (with slight variations occasionally). I used to think I was simply 'fair game' for that kind of treatment, what with being a stripper who was being paid to sexually titivate men. But now I can see that there is a whole other thing going on there; a complete and utter refusal to see me as, well..a human being worthy of a little respect, perhaps.

Yonic, thanks for that explanation. I have always thought Galloway was a curious creature but haven't really spent time listening to his rants (to me he seems a perpetual ranter, perhaps I am being unfair). How does he get away with that kind of thinking? I suspect it is because men largely - and secretly - think the same?

And I know what you mean about the 'highly educated' and feeling like an idiot....

I am 'highly educated' but only in a certain quite narrow field. And I guess a lot of the problems with discussing feminism is that it is now quite an 'academic' subject and there are a number of posters who post from that perspective. I think I sometimes feel left behind. But it does mean you can learn a lot from those posters who are patient and prepared to explain and fortunately there are quite a few of them.

I also think you are right to say that those men would treat you with such disrespect because you weren't seen on the same level as them as a human being worthy of respect. Is that because they had been taught their sexual desires were shameful? And if you were willing to titilate them, that made you also shameful?

Its just so upsetting. I see little boys who love their mums and then they grow up to be the middle aged men who would abuse you in bars.

What is going on?

Dawkins is a prat. Shame, as some of his early books were great (everyone should read the Blind Watchmaker), but then got repetitive and then there was the God Delusion... As an explanation of atheism to isolated American kids who have been raised to think it is impossible to have morals without gods, it's quite good. As a critique of what religious people think, it's a pile of crap. And then he got Twitter...

I think both atheist and skeptic groups have created a 'movement' in the US, and contain a significant number of men who have ditched God but not passionate flag-waving for their beliefs nor sexism that they were raised with. Whereas here atheists are a minority larger than any relgious group, really not oppressed, and there's no pressure to coalesce into a movement, just some people who think it would be nice to have an easy way to create a social life like others get from going to church. Ditto skeptics (which tend to be more scientist/geek types against 'woo' and Bad Science, and not all are atheists) - so in the UK the people bothering to attend groups may be mainly men but with much less of a persecution complex. But still a bit prone to all the faults of any other group of young geeky men (search for Geek Social Fallacies).

I've never made it to a Skeptics in the Pub or similar event myself but friends have enjoyed them.

It's not news that a lot of men are sexist gits and so sadly, by extension, there will be a lot of sexist gits wherever there are a lot of men - irrespective of the politics, religion, lack of religion, love of gaming or whatever brought them together in the first place ...

As for Galloway, Dawkins et al - being a professional know-it-all-shouty-man on a certain topic with everyone hanging on your words no doubt gives you a huge ego and a feeling that whatever you say about anything - even stuff you know bugger-all about - is more valid than what lesser beings eg. people who aren't you - think about it ... So you end up banging on about everything and nothing and diluting the respect people might have had for your original views.

As said above some groups of men (probably most) have a kind of herd mentality and if someone is sexist the others follow even if in their usual lives interacting with men and women they aren't.

On the whole atheist men tend to be less sexist than many religious men simply because most of the religions are sexist to the core. However that does not mean all atheist men are not sexist.

I am pretty new to mumsnet but have lurked for ages and yes, I feel stupid when I read the eloquent critical thinking on the feminism boards. I feel I can't join in with most discussion as I am a Christian whose main goal in life is to live more Christ-like, which I feel is ultimately life-enriching. All other attempts to find happiness/contentment/self-love have failed and my past is littered with shocking stuff I struggle to forgive myself for. I know feminists will think that's idiotic and I am following a patriarchal ideal or something. But I will still read these threads because I am learning bits all the time.

These men in clubs where I worked: I honestly think that they can't quite figure out why and how an otherwise intelligent woman could take her clothes off and denigrate herself in such a way. They can't work it out because the dancer herself doesn't know, either (I spent eight years telling myself I was the empowered one). I would sometimes discuss my degree with punters (I was studying at the same time) whilst sat there with a naughty nurse outfit on. Completely and utterly mental when I look back. It's mental to them, too, and they can't resist pushing the conversation to see whether there are other weird and wonderful dichotomies knocking about. I don't know..but some of them simply seemed entranced and mystified and as though they had lost complete control of their manners and thoughts.

I wonder if the heart of it this general toxic attitude to expressions of sexuality that must be a hangover from Victorian prudery. When you add to that the instant availability of a lot of really hard core porn it must create an explosive mix. Lots of mixed messages.

Sorry I cross posted with the posters above. I like what you say about these 'shouty' men and their hangers-on, citrus.

Interesting thread. But as a short answer to your original question: No. Misogyny has never brought down any movement. Most seem to thrive on it, in fact. I fail to see why atheism would be any different.

Yes, yes, Spero, you've said in a few words what my rambling blatherings were trying to say. Certainly a large proportion of punters seemed to ooze this simmering distaste for this blatant sexual posturing before their eyes.