-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Sexism of the "New Atheist" Community
- Thread starter Debater Slayer
- Start date
Hmmm...I might need to reread, and think through this more completely, but I'll offer my initial thoughts straight off the top;
1) The over-representation of men in the 'New Atheist' movement doesn't surprise me in the least, and should be expected (pragmatically) since the areas of society through which the more visible 'New Atheists' come from are male dominated. Simple maths suggests an over-representation of men is likely. I should be very clear in suggesting I don't see this as a positive thing.
2) Sam Harris' purported sexism is something I would need to look into further, and I'd hesitate to condemn based purely on this article. But I think the overarching problem is a trap that too many people seem to be falling into, including perhaps the New Atheists themselves, or at least some of their followers. By identifying with a rational based anti-religion movement, there seems to be an expectation that this confers rationality and scientific precision on all their thoughts and actions. That's simply untrue. But the lack of rationality or liberalism of a New Atheist (or even New Atheists) doesn't mean New Atheism is sexist in and of itself. The fundamental difference between the religions they attack and the atheism they support is that religion has a documented dogma. Not pushing the 'all religions are equal' message, because I think that is bunkum, but it's possible for a religion to have a systemic, documented anti-feminist bias. At worst, New Atheism can have some key adherents who are not being positive role models.
3) New Atheism, in itself, drives me a little crazy as an atheist. I actually like listening to Harris and Hitchens, in particular, but my form of atheism is very different to theirs, and the whole 'New Atheism' thing seems to reinforce a view that atheism = anti-theism. I just don't expect these guys to hand-feed me accurate information. They are thought-provokers, nothing more. I would think anyone looking to them for answers on anything is kind of missing the point, but letting them define atheism, or assuming that they can drive what atheism is would be a mistake.
Ultimately New Atheism can be more accurately understood through a sales and marketing lens than as a cohesive social or religious movement, and that's a more appropriate way to define and judge it, I think.
1) The over-representation of men in the 'New Atheist' movement doesn't surprise me in the least, and should be expected (pragmatically) since the areas of society through which the more visible 'New Atheists' come from are male dominated. Simple maths suggests an over-representation of men is likely. I should be very clear in suggesting I don't see this as a positive thing.
2) Sam Harris' purported sexism is something I would need to look into further, and I'd hesitate to condemn based purely on this article. But I think the overarching problem is a trap that too many people seem to be falling into, including perhaps the New Atheists themselves, or at least some of their followers. By identifying with a rational based anti-religion movement, there seems to be an expectation that this confers rationality and scientific precision on all their thoughts and actions. That's simply untrue. But the lack of rationality or liberalism of a New Atheist (or even New Atheists) doesn't mean New Atheism is sexist in and of itself. The fundamental difference between the religions they attack and the atheism they support is that religion has a documented dogma. Not pushing the 'all religions are equal' message, because I think that is bunkum, but it's possible for a religion to have a systemic, documented anti-feminist bias. At worst, New Atheism can have some key adherents who are not being positive role models.
3) New Atheism, in itself, drives me a little crazy as an atheist. I actually like listening to Harris and Hitchens, in particular, but my form of atheism is very different to theirs, and the whole 'New Atheism' thing seems to reinforce a view that atheism = anti-theism. I just don't expect these guys to hand-feed me accurate information. They are thought-provokers, nothing more. I would think anyone looking to them for answers on anything is kind of missing the point, but letting them define atheism, or assuming that they can drive what atheism is would be a mistake.
Ultimately New Atheism can be more accurately understood through a sales and marketing lens than as a cohesive social or religious movement, and that's a more appropriate way to define and judge it, I think.
Some problems....
1) The "atheist leadership" decried by the author is really no leadership at all. Unlike religions, atheism has no authorities who are more expert than any other atheists. The media focus upon lightning rods, who are made so by the very same media.
2) Much of the article trumpets dubious inferences of quotes as factual.
3) Dawkins is treated as representative of atheists. In reality, he's a jerk who doesn't represent me. (This should be part of #1, eh?)
4) The author invokes the No True Scotsman fallacy to claim C H Sommers is a "professional anti-feminist" as evidence of Dawkins's misogyny.
Slate is bad enuf (the Fox News of the left), but I see the author is with the even loopier leftier Alternet....which explains the histrionic language (see #4).
1) The "atheist leadership" decried by the author is really no leadership at all. Unlike religions, atheism has no authorities who are more expert than any other atheists. The media focus upon lightning rods, who are made so by the very same media.
2) Much of the article trumpets dubious inferences of quotes as factual.
3) Dawkins is treated as representative of atheists. In reality, he's a jerk who doesn't represent me. (This should be part of #1, eh?)
4) The author invokes the No True Scotsman fallacy to claim C H Sommers is a "professional anti-feminist" as evidence of Dawkins's misogyny.
Slate is bad enuf (the Fox News of the left), but I see the author is with the even loopier leftier Alternet....which explains the histrionic language (see #4).
Last edited:
Yerda
Veteran Member
Both of these sites seem to have a grudge against Sam Harris. Some of the stuff published has been cringey.
This is the feminist-only forum.
Sam Harris is my favorite public speaker and intellectual because I agree with at least 95% of what he says, but I was extremely disappointed with his sexist comments. They surprised me, which is why I decided to share the article with others as well.
Yerda
Veteran Member
I read about it when it happened and I thought it was nonsense at the time. I don't think he's misogynist. Perhaps I'm biased because I quite like him.
There is a schism in the atheist community. I remember how nasty the Rebecca Watson "elevatorgate" thing got, and much of the anti-religioius energy has been transferred to anti-feminism fervor within a faction of atheism, which of course, polarizes both sides. Some have even described feminism as a "religion." **rolls eyes**
Sam Harris makes sexist statement about how men are more hard wired to critical thinking than women.
Women say it isn't cool.
Harris gets defensive, and defenders tell the women to get a clue and/or shut up. The people who speak up are discredited, and gaslighting occurs telling the women they don't see what they think they see.
This problem runs the gamut across the spectrum. I tend to wonder about some men who claim they care about gender equality but refuse to see themselves as even capable of making any errors in gender equality. They wave banners of equality, and then become overtly defensive when called out, wanting to make equality about their feelings and intentions.
"Sexism is bad! Women aren't as capable of critical thinking as men are because of estrogen!"
Backlash ensues...
"Hey, I'm the good guy! You have a problem with MY comments? Talk to me like I'm the good guy. Don't react like that. How dare you!"
Rinse. Lather. Repeat. It happens. I just keep bringing up the problem in spite of how much it annoys some people.
Women say it isn't cool.
Harris gets defensive, and defenders tell the women to get a clue and/or shut up. The people who speak up are discredited, and gaslighting occurs telling the women they don't see what they think they see.
This problem runs the gamut across the spectrum. I tend to wonder about some men who claim they care about gender equality but refuse to see themselves as even capable of making any errors in gender equality. They wave banners of equality, and then become overtly defensive when called out, wanting to make equality about their feelings and intentions.
"Sexism is bad! Women aren't as capable of critical thinking as men are because of estrogen!"
Backlash ensues...
"Hey, I'm the good guy! You have a problem with MY comments? Talk to me like I'm the good guy. Don't react like that. How dare you!"
Rinse. Lather. Repeat. It happens. I just keep bringing up the problem in spite of how much it annoys some people.
I think (hope?) that part of what's going on is that the atheist community is trying to tackle sexism within itself, which ends up meaning that dirty laundry gets aired.
Remember that Sam Harris' comments were made in the context of a discussion about why the percentage of women in the atheist movement is low. If people weren't trying to tackle systemic sexism, the incident would never have happened.
As for Michael Shermer, who the article touched on, I don't know. In the circles I frequent, he's been basically a pariah since the all the allegations against him came out. Nobody I know, and no prominent atheists or skeptics I read or listen to, have protected him.That being said, apparently he has some support, since somebody's making sure his Wikipedia page doesn't mention any of what's gone on over the past year, and since everything came to light, I've heard allegations that it was an open secret at skeptic conventions that Shermer was someone that women should watch out for... so maybe there's truth in the claim that at least a part of the atheist movement has protected him. It isn't the part I belong to and wouldn't be a part I like, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist
Aw, dang.....didn't see it.
I am out of here...after this acknowledgment.
I think it is by definition misleading to talk of "New Atheism" as if it were a thing.
Atheism is atheism.
Atheism is atheism.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
“There’s something about that critical posture that is to some degree instrinsically male and more attractive to guys than to women.” He added, “The atheist variable just has this— it doesn’t obviously have this nurturing, coherence-building extra estrogen vibe that you would want by default if you wanted to attract as many women as men.”
And just when I thought the New-Atheist "high priests" were just rude and intolerant towards religion.
And just when I thought the New-Atheist "high priests" were just rude and intolerant towards religion.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Atheism is never just atheism the same way Christianity is never just Christianity the same way a Coke is never just a Coke.
Actually, if anything atheism is more amorphous and diverse than Christianity, and certainly more than standardized beverages.
It makes little or no sense to talk of a "new atheist movement" that basically does not exist at all.
If Dawkins or any other atheist is a misoginist or whatever, then sure, let's criticize him for that as warranted by the situation.
Speaking of it as a trait of "new atheism" is however more than a bit misguided, until and unless new atheism can be demonstrated to exist as some form of organized movement, which I figure it is not to begin with.
There's a reason I put that term in quotation marks when I use it. I don't think the term "atheism" itself should be necessary to use, actually, much less "New Athiesm." That's a discussion for a different thread, though.
Or maybe it isn't. This is IMO an issue of unjustified generalization, nothing more or less.
Not that many prominent female atheist writers, speakers, bloggers, youtube channels in comparison as to male atheists. Curious as to the causes and conditions why.
Harris spoke on why he thinks it was so, and wound up with foot-in-mouth syndrome by speaking as if an ideology, a movement, or a perspective carries a sex/gender/hormonal component. One where women are truly limited in capability and men hold an advantage, according to his statement and perspectives like his. Because science. Not a holy book. So science is more authoritative in speaking about male biological superiority (amirite, folks? wink wink...).
And I speak as a fan of both Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. I don't see statements like above as an indicator of him being a bad person. I see it as indicative of how deeply and insidiously misogyny and sexism can run.
Personally, I'm highly sympathetic toward "New Atheism," especially Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. I still find the comments from Harris disappointingly and clearly sexist, though, and I think they point to a worrying trend of sexism even among supposedly rational communities. Seeing comments by a lot of atheists online who defend such comments and strongly bash feminism just highlights how much feminism is needed even among rationalist circles.