I don't identify as a theist but I'm not part of any atheist groups or anything like that. So I don't have much first-hand experience as to how much misogyny exists in the atheist community. From what I've read there are a lot of issues with misogyny in the active/political atheist community.
I read the article. And then I read Harris' posted defense. This topic interested me because I do like Harris in general, so I wanted to look into it.
I don't really like either direction of how this Harris' aspect was discussed. I think he said some problematic things and I also think the author of the Salon article said some very inaccurate things. I don't particularly disagree with the idea that certain activities may be statistically more appealing to males or females, because my feminism is not based on the idea that men and women are statistically identical. I have little problem with generalizations about any given gender difference if they a) are well-evidenced, b) take into account surrounding culture rather than just assume biological difference, and c) are respectful and used appropriately.
I don't equate stating a gender difference with being misogynistic. I look into whether it was inaccurate, incomplete, or coming from a harmful attitude, or whether it was a fair assessment.
For example, men commit the most violent forms of crime more often than women do. Violent criminals statistically have higher testosterone levels than average, regardless of gender. Children with learning disabilities statistically have higher testosterone levels than children without learning disabilities, regardless of gender. Other studies show there's more at play here than just testosterone; high testosterone clearly isn't sufficient to cause such things. It merely has a statistical correlation.
It would
not be sexist to state those things, or to take a position that certain biological differences can cause statistical variations in behavior. But it
would be sexist to say that this shows that men as a whole are violent, and it would be poorly worded or poorly concluded to say something like "men are more violent than women" since my evidence base is only referring to the extreme end rather than looking at the middle/average group.
Harris was asked why the majority of outspoken atheists are men. He said,
"I think it may have to do with my person[al] slant as an author, being very critical of bad ideas. This can sound very angry to people..People just don’t like to have their ideas criticized. There’s something about that critical posture that is to some degree intrinsically male and more attractive to guys than to women. 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."
Some things about the statement have some basis. Research shows that on the "Big Five" personality test, women statistically score higher in the "Agreeableness" dimension, among other differences. We're less likely to be overtly confrontational, for one reason or another. And his argument partially is that as an inherently controversial, angry-sounding thing (his words, basically), outspoken atheism attracts fewer females than males. I wouldn't entirely disagree with that possibility, but I wouldn't particularly agree with it either.
There are things about the statement I think are wrong, incomplete, or poorly worded. There's a messed up implication in his quote that women are less critical towards bad ideas. My immediate thought would be that it would be interesting to hear whether he thinks women are less likely to
identify the difference between a good and bad idea, or whether we are less likely to
call a bad idea out as one. Because the first option there relates to critical thinking ability while the second option there relates more to agreeableness/confrontation, which I think is a relevant distinction. He went on to address that in his post and it seems he meant the latter, not the former.
I think the biggest flaw in his statement is the assumption that these are biological differences rather than having a large cultural element. For example, while it may be true that women are found to be more agreeable than men on average, it's also true that people in Oregon are more agreeable than people from New Jersey on average, regardless of gender. This shows that a large portion of the agreeable/disagreeable difference is cultural. Women could be simply more culturally-enforced into agreeableness than men, which probably almost any feminist would agree is true. Women that are highly assertive often are interpreted less positively than highly assertive men, according to surveys. That's misogynistic. This has major implications for moving up the corporate ladder at work. It seems to me the biggest problem with Harris' statement is that he assumes the difference is fundamentally with women, rather than taking into account culture.
Harris' posted defense did mention this, agreeing that certain aspects are a product of culture, although I still think he's resting a bit too much on certain assumptions because he didn't emphasize it very much. He wrote,
"But just as we can say that men are generally taller than women, without denying that some women are taller than most men, there are psychological differences between men and women which, considered in the aggregate, might explain why “angry atheism” attracts more of the former. Some of these differences are innate; some are surely the product of culture. Nothing in my remarks was meant to suggest that women can’t think as critically as men or that they are more likely to be taken in by bad ideas. Again, I was talking about a fondness for a perceived style of religion bashing with which I and other vocal atheists are often associated."
Basically I would happily debate certain points he made or ask for clarification on certain views, but from much of his work I've read and listened to I've never seen him as someone that has a particular problem with women and after looking at the quote and post, I still do not. Much of his work has focused on how women are statistically problematically treated in Islamic societies, for one thing.
In addition, I found the author's main paragraph about Harris' post to be highly inaccurate:
Salon Article said:
First, he warmed up with the “women are humorless” gambit, declaring his “estrogen vibe” comment a joke that simply flew over female heads. He then moved on to produce an awesome cornucopia of sexist blather: Women’s value is their service to men. (“I was raised by a single mother. I have two daughters. Most of my editors have been women, and my first, last, and best editor is always my wife.”) Women’s inherent desire to serve rather than lead explains their second-class status. (“For instance, only 5 percent of Fortune 500 companies are run by women…How much is due to the disproportionate (and heroic) sacrifices women make in their 20s or 30s to have families?”) Putting women on a pedestal is better than treating them like equals. (“I tend to respect women more than men.”) Women who don’t defer to men are *****y. (“However, I don’t think I’ll ever forget the mixture of contempt and pity my words elicited from this young woman.”)
Analyzed point by point:
"First, he warmed up with the “women are humorless” gambit, declaring his “estrogen vibe” comment a joke that simply flew over female heads."
No, he didn't. Those are her words, not his. He said his tone acknowledged the silliness of his own statement and that it does not transfer well to print and got a laugh in person. Nothing of what he said here is anything like what she said he said.
"He then moved on to produce an awesome cornucopia of sexist blather: Women’s value is their service to men. (“I was raised by a single mother. I have two daughters. Most of my editors have been women, and my first, last, and best editor is always my wife.”)"
No, he didn't say or imply anything about women's value is their service to men. Those again are her words, not his. Should I go publish an article about how the author of this article apparently has a problem with editors, calling their profession a job about serving men? That's what happens when you re-arrange statements into the worst-possible interpretation and run with it. Editors at publishing companies have a lot of power- authors have to
please the editors to get published.
Women’s inherent desire to serve rather than lead explains their second-class status. (“For instance, only 5 percent of Fortune 500 companies are run by women…How much is due to the disproportionate (and heroic) sacrifices women make in their 20s or 30s to have families?”)
In that paragraph, he wrote that sexism and misogyny exist in society, which he apparently considers problematic. Then he went on about some other factors in addition to sexism and misogyny that can factor into why women do not make it to the top of an organization very often, including having children and potentially having less psychological attributes statistically for the role. And then he specifically said, "
I have no idea" which of the factors is most dominant when it comes to affecting women at work. So he was not making an actual conclusion about what explains second-class status other than saying it's a mix of things in unknown-to-him proportions.
I think Harris could have done better here. He didn't mention as a potential factor, for example, that assertive female bosses get poorer employee survey results than assertive male bosses in the workplace. And there's also the factor that sexism exists against women that get pregnant and take time off work. Mothers are socially expected to take care of children more than fathers while they both balance careers. I think he's possibly assuming too much biology here and not enough culture. But he did admit ignorance on the topic. The author didn't summarize what he said properly at all.
"Putting women on a pedestal is better than treating them like equals. (“I tend to respect women more than men.”)"
Uh, no.
He wrote,
"Listen, I was raised by a single mother. I have two daughters. Most of my editors have been women, and my first, last, and best editor is always my wife. If you really want to know the truth about me, I tend to respect women more than men. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, but it’s actually an honest statement about my psychological biases. I knew that this honest (and admittedly desperate) confession could be cynically viewed as a version of the “Some of my best friends are black!” defense. (It isn’t. I’m not saying that my fondness for certain women proves that I’m not sexist. I’m saying that I actually respect women more than men by default. Again, I’m not saying that this is necessarily good; I’m saying that it is a fact.)"
So he's kind of saying the opposite of what she said he said. This is either deliberate mischaracterization or a failure to properly read the article on her part.
"Women who don’t defer to men are *****y. (“However, I don’t think I’ll ever forget the mixture of contempt and pity my words elicited from this young woman.”)"
Those again are her words, not his at all, written or implied. Just compare her quote to his. He was talking about the emotional affect one particular person had in response to him, vs her quote about women deferring to men. It's a very poor augmentation style to quote something and then just rephrase it as being 10x worse.
All of those kinds of arguments are the type I distance myself from, personally.
...
On a separate note, if the context about Dawkins comparing rape victims to drunk drivers is accurate, then that is absolutely vile. And I've read before about Shermer being accused of sexual assault, which if true, is indefensible.
