Why the New Atheism is a boys' club

[rug]

Is it that female intellectuals are less rational and contrarian than male secularists? Or just that society prefers lionising men?

Victoria Bekiempis guardian.co.uk, Monday 26 September 2011 09.30 EDT

Women are God-fearing and don't challenge institutions. Men, on the other hand, are skeptical and rational, and go out of their way to publicly call bullshit on faith and religion – which is why today's well-known secular thinkers, especially in the ranks of the New Atheism movement, are all male.

These statements should sound ridiculous because, of course, they are. From Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the founder of American Atheists, whose 1963 US supreme court lawsuit brought an end to prayer in public schools, to Sergeant Kathleen Johnson, who started an organisation for atheists in the United States military, to Debbie Goddard, founder of African Americans for Humanism, countless women have worked as successful atheist activists. They've penned books, run organisations and advocated on behalf of religiously repressed citizens. But you might not guess that from the popular portrayal and perception of atheism in America, which overwhelmingly treats the contemporary class of non-God-fearing freethinkers (also known as secularists, skeptics and nonbelievers) as a contentious, showboating boys' club.

In November 2006, Wired magazine identified Richard Dawkins, Daniel C Dennett and Sam Harris as a "band of intellectual brothers", whose bestselling books on atheism, published between 2004 and 2006, heralded an era of 21st-century nonbelief. The media quickly dubbed this "the New Atheism". What differentiates this movement from more old-school atheism (besides the mainstream media's ever-present need to anoint, brand and categorise thought leaders) is that New Atheists take a vehemently zero-tolerance approach to faith, mysticism and even agnosticism. Though the basics are the same – non-belief in a god or gods – the new system also calls for pushing non-belief on others, almost to the point of abject proselytisation.

In a sidebar titled "Faces of the New Atheism", the article profiled a few other notable non-believers – Greg Graffin of the band Bad Religion, illusionists Penn and Teller and writer Warren Allen Smith, with short tidbits illustrating how their atheism plays out in their lives and work. (Penn Jillette's cars, for instance, feature license plates reading "ATHEIST" and "GODLESS".) Shortly afterwards, CNN followed up with "The Rise of the 'New Atheists'", a web story on the subject, which added to the clubhouse British journalist Christopher Hitchens, whose then-upcoming book was 2007's God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything; and Victor J Stenger, an author and physicist, joined the bunch with the 2007 publication of his book God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/26/new-atheism-boys-club

[and-justice-for-all]

1. unrec for the "New Atheism" bullshit...nt

[rug]

3. I concur.

[Warpy]

2. Oh, rubbish.

The truth is that the social consequences of coming out as an outspoken atheist are far worse for women than they are for men. Only women who have been allowed to be successful are able to come out and not experience shunning by their good Christian acquaintances, friends and family.

Women are atheists at much the same rate as men and for the same reason. However, we're much likelier to stay in that "I'm not religious" closet. The exception is online, but even then the consequence of an avalanche of sheer, seething hatred falls much more heavily on females than on males.

[rug]

4. That may be true but the article is about its perceived leaders.

[Warpy]

5. Men always shove their way to the front and proclaim themselves leaders

but in the world of thought, that is generally not the case.

[dmallind]

10. except "the men" have declared themselves no such thing. The media has. nt

[cleanhippie]

13. Bingo!

[LeftishBrit]

6. delete (posted in wrong place)

[LeftishBrit]

7. On the whole...

the perceived leaders in most areas, especially areas that involve debate and publicity management, *do* tend to be men. Partly because it is still more accepted for men to be assertive and confrontational; partly because the leaders of so-called 'new atheism' tend to be senior individuals at the higher levels of academia. On the whole, males dominate at the highest levels in universities, and since they did so even more until very recently, the male bias is stronger at the more senior levels. Also the word 'perceived' is an operative word here; males are probably still more likely to be *perceived* as leaders, even when females are performing similar activities - as indeed the article points out.

I am sure that the perceived leaders among Christian apologists, even in academia let alone in the actual churches and religious institutions, would also turn out to be men.

[Jim__]

8. I took the article to be saying that a large part of this perception is due to the media.

I don't think the article lays the entire blame on the media; but a large part of it:

Yet, though Hecht's and Jacoby's books both came out shortly before Wired bestowed its "New Atheist" designation on the likes of Dawkins and Harris (whose The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason was published the same year as Jacoby's Freethinkers), neither woman is invoked in the mainstream media's anointing of atheist thought leaders. Is it that "rationality" – the bedrock of New Atheist doctrine – is historically gendered male, while women are considered more emotional? Is it that their books are too conciliatory toward religion, too well-balanced, too, you know, womanly?

...

Representation matters, and when various media reports combined to create the "New Atheist" meme without mentioning the contributions of the women involved in the movement, the result was that the meme itself became masculinised. And because contemporary atheism has become so synonymous with this initially identified group, women atheists may well continue to be overlooked by the mainstream (or will, as some female skeptics have, reject inclusion on principle). It's a state of affairs very much in line with the history of women in other fields in which battling continued institutional neglect – as opposed to intrinsic hostility – is an ongoing theme.

[dmallind]

9. You mean the groups that hit the bigtime under O'Hair and that Johnson led for over a decade?

Organized atheism has been under female leadership more than male. Can't think of a church that that applies to.

[laconicsax]

12. +1000

[onager]

17. Not to mention...

But I will anyway, since this topic seems to come up every other week...

Maggie Ardiente - Development Director at the American Humanist Association
Lauren Becker - Outreach Coordinator for the Center for Inquiry
Lori Lipman Brown - Founding director of Secular Coalition for America
R. Elisabeth Cornwell - Executive director of the U.S. branch of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Margaret Downey - Activist, founder and president of The Freethought Society
Annie Laurie Gaylor - Co-founder and current co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation
Debbie Goddard - director of African Americans for Humanism and Campus coordinator at the Center for Inquiry
Susan Jacoby - director of New York's Center for Inquiry
Kathleen Johnson - Vice president and military director of American Atheists, founder of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers
Wendy Kaminer - Secular Coalition for America Advisory Board Member
Lyz Liddell - Campus organizer for the Secular Student Alliance
June Maxwell - Director of Humanist Academy-Glasgow
Amanda Metskas - Head Director of Camp Quest
Sumitra Padmanabhan - Secretary of the Humanists' Association of India
Toni van Pelt - Director of the Center for Inquiry-Office of Public Policy
Eugenie Scott - executive director of the National Center for Science Education
Ariane Sherine - Creator of the Atheist Bus Campaign
Samantha Stein - Director of Camp Quest UK
Wafa Sultan - Outspoken critic of Islam
Reba Boyd Wooden - Executive Director, Center for Inquiry Indiana

[iris27]

23. I would add Ayaan Hirsi Ali to that as well, under the same

label as Sultan.

[customerserviceguy]

11. If there is a "New Atheism"

and I don't concede there really is, it is only a creation of the media, which wants to avoid stepping on the toes of the religious. It doesn't surprise me that such suck-ups also want to make it look like a boys' club.

Madelyn Murray O'Hair was the first atheist I ever heard of, she's the mother of this school of thought in America, as far as I'm concerned. No one else has suffered as much for free thought in this in recent times as her.

[onager]

16. The media and the Faitheist/Accomodationist suck-ups.

But for that bunch - the Chris Mooney-Terry Eagleton-James Wood Axis - it's also about picking up traffic.

When they put "Gnu Atheist" or "Dawkins" into a title, they know it will generate more eyeballs on their site. Otherwise their tedious rants on the importance of brown-nosing believers just get ignored.

[trotsky]

14. Who are the female leaders in your church, rug?

Oh, that's right... there are nun.

[rug]

15. Oh, are you organized now?

Imagine that.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

19. Just asking, if you are going to try and criticize non-believers...

for a lack of female "leaders" among them, you should either belong to an organization that doesn't make you look like a hypocrite, or at least get your facts straight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_Johnson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O%27Hair

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Laurie_Gaylor

[Name removed]

22. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rug]

37. Are you listing your leaders?

Or simply influential women?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Day

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henriette_DeLille

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_Radford_Ruether

By the way, if you accuse someone of being hypocritical, don't hide behind coyness.

[darkstar3]

38. Speaking of coy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x305242#305249

Come on, rug. Tell us how you really feel.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[darkstar3]

40. Since it has already been established that there is nothing "new" about atheism,

and the only reason that label is applied to certain individuals is because they dare to speak openly and publicly about their atheism, there is only one conclusion to your statement. Do you remember what I told you about when I would shut up?

[rug]

41. It's the headline. write to them.

As for remembering anything you say, why would I?

[darkstar3]

42. I wasn't talking about the headline, I was talking about your "coy" swipe

at people who vocalize their disagreement with your religion.

[rug]

43. You're talking to yourself.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

76. Each of them has led an actual atheist or non-believer group. But you knew that.

Your OP is just yet another attempt by someone to tear down atheism with ad homs, and you duly follow it up by baiting, insulting, and flinging one-liners.

[Goblinmonger]

20. I ain't voting for no chick to be in no leadership position in my religion.

Wait, I guess I can't remember ever voting for a leader.
I guess it's not really a religion either.
I guess there's no real hierarchy or organization at all, come to think of it.

So maybe this is just a pile of crap off the back of Dawkins' sexist statements. Yep. That must be it.

[cleanhippie]

21. Just more fabricated controversy. If "Gnu Atheists" would just do something REALLY controversial...

like rape young children in their care, or proclaim that the end of the world was coming, or design a system to keep women subservient, or tell children that if they don't obey Daddy they will get "trained up", or....well, you get the idea.

If atheists would just do SOMETHING other than show how these supernatural "worldviews" are harmful and irrational, then there would be no need to fabricate these so-called "controversies."

[humblebum]

34. i suppose if you deny something long enough, it becomes your "worldview." nt

[cleanhippie]

47. .

[humblebum]

50. You explain your world view quite nicely. Some people do talk

with their hands more than their mouths.

[cleanhippie]

51. This is a much better response to your incoherent babble than words...

[David Sky]

24. The biggest pile of horse manure I've seen in The Guardian in a

very long time.

And note the editor's note at the bottom of the opinion piece....note where it appeared originally!

" This article was originally published as "The Unbelievers: New Atheism and the Old Boys' Club" in Bitch Magazine (no 51, Summer 2011) and is crossposted by kind permission of the editor"

Obviously The Guardian had some space to fill.

[ButterflyBlood]

25. Why would atheism even need leaders?

Seems pretty pointless. Not believing in God isn't something that would require much organization or direction.

[trotsky]

26. You're right, it doesn't.

But some believers are unable to see atheism as the "none of the above" stance, so they desperately try to portray it as a "religion" with "leaders" that we all follow. Usually this is done because they can't defend the actions of the official church institution that they themselves DO support with their time and money, so they attack non-belief instead.

[LeftishBrit]

29. Quite so.

The whole idea that atheists are a big organized movement is mostly a piece of paranoia by people who fear or condemn atheism.

I am an atheist who happens to live in the same town as Richard Dawkins and a couple of other well-known atheists - and I have *never* been to anything that could be called an 'atheists' meeting'.

[humblebum]

27. New Atheism is nothing more than repackaged old atheism. nt

[LeftishBrit]

28. Agree, with the omission of the word 'repackaged'

Atheism is not new but has existed for thousands of years. The Psalms complain of atheists: 'The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'.


Actually I don't mind who thinks atheists are fools, so long as we're not treated as inferior citizens, dangers to the state, or blasphemers to be punished.

[humblebum]

30. I agree there have always been atheists. But, regarding

New Atheism, when I say it is "repackaged old atheism", I am referring to "post-Enlightenment, Paris Commune, Vienna Circle, scientifically-oriented"-type atheism - organized atheism. New atheism is more or less a restatement or a "resurrection" of the concept.

I view this organized atheism in the same light as I do right-wing extremist theism.

[darkstar3]

31. The difference between them being that one is a figment of your imagination,

perpetuated by the hate speech of fearful fundies.

[humblebum]

32. You illustrate my example with perfection just about every time you post. nt

[darkstar3]

33. There is no universe in which that statement makes sense.

[David Sky]

35. You might need better reading glasses. Your conceptual references are all ...

askew. I believe there's probably a giant Crucifiction image on those glasses blurring your view of reality.

More people who have lived on this planet in the last 2000 years have NOT been Christians. Many of them believed in no God.
Rightfully so, since there is absolutely NOT ONE SCINTILLA OF CONCRETE evidence of a god, nor a savior, nor life after death, nor Heaven, nor Hell, nor Satan, nor any other god, good or bad.

All you have is that self-imposed image on your view of the world, despite billions of people who live here now, or have lived here in the last 2000 years since your mythical Christ supposedly changed everything. Nope, we're not buying your fairy tales, and you can jump up and down and whine and scream, just like any other 3 year old, you're not getting your fantasy come true in your lifetime. Please, just go pet the cat and eat some ice cream, Christians who preach to non-Christians are some of the most counterproductive people on this planet today, much like whining 3 year olds.

[humblebum]

36. What do numbers have to do with anything?And where did I make a claim

that more people have been Christians? Now who needs the reading glasses here?

Tell me. What would be evidence of a god? Far as I can tell, there's no objective proof anywhere to validate

your opinion nor mine.

[David Sky]

45. You never made the claim, but you still insist upon whining that you are

the chosen 3 year old to get the special toy. You so much do NOT bother to grasp the concept of criticisms of your behavior here... try to grow up a little bit, and try to read for meaning before responding from such a defensive and irrelevant position

And, as for your assertion that "there's no objective proof anywhere to validate your opinion nor mine"

You again missed all the points. You have opinions, I have facts, you simply refuse to look at facts, because you are looking through your glasses with the image of the Crucifiction upon them. Get a new pair of grown up glasses, ones that are totally unblemished with childish images of gods and Satans and Christ.

Your total lack of comprehension of what my post referenced shows a severe lack of sophistication of brain power, and a sadistic desire to attempt to arrogantly undermine factual evidence with your un`-testable opinions.

Try another forum, maybe cartoon characters, or fantasy, or fairy tales, your opinions here on DU's religion forums makes Christians look incredibly obtuse. I happen to like Christians, as long as they don't force their beliefs down our throats.

Christianity is like a Penis. Fine to keep it to yourself, but don't whip it out, show it around, and force it in front of my face, or worse, down the throats of my children.

Keep your mythology to yourself, and respect the rights of others not to be forced to look at it simply because you're proud of it. It's rather offensive to be confronted with childish bragging, based solely upon a lack of understanding of the world around you, and your unwillingness to learn and grow more mature and respectful of others on this planet.

[humblebum]

46. You are kinda wearing your opinions on your sleeve aren't you?

Like I said, if you have to rely on ridicule to validate your POV, you really do lose your credibility. I do not claim objective proof. And you certainly can't provide any either. There is no "fact" that "proves" there is no diety, or proves there is.

[David Sky]

52. My facts are NOT opinions on my sleeve..Yes, there are facts, you refuse to ...

look that far beyond your vision.

There is no loss of credibility when facts are presented, the only one who loses credibility is the person who refuses to look at facts, and claims those facts are equal to unscientific "opinions".

Keep your opinions in your pants, like other parts of your body. When you are mature enough to discuss data-based evidence, come back to the courtroom, but don't whip out that opinion-based fantasy or mythology, and claim it is equal to factual evidence, and don't claim you are being "ridiculed" when you are challenged for facts. You are being treated as if you are an adult in the courtroom of factual decision-making. If you don't feel comfortable in that arena, don't claim you are being ridiculed, just admit, you don't have the facts to back up your claims.

[humblebum]

53. The one fact that is so obvious is:

that you think, "if you cannot see it, hear it, smell it, taste it, or feel/touch it - then it cannot exist.

Excuse me, but I really do have to question your definition of free thought. Sorry, bubba. That's opinion, not fact.

[darkstar3]

54. Rectal extraction.

[David Sky]

55. No honey, I'm not the "bubba" ....anything that cannot be measured

with any of our five senses, simply does not exist.

You want to believe in fairies, witches, or Greek gods, or Easter bunnies, UFO's, aura's, body of Christ in a wafer,

or whatever, none of them can be scientifically documented. Sorry.

I prefer to believe in those real measurable, documentable, actual events.

If you wish to be allied with believers in ghosts, believers in Easter bunnies, fairies, witches, whatever.

All this proves is that you are the "bubba", the non-sceintist, the gullible.

If mythology is more your style, just keep it to yourself, don't force your fairy tales upon others here at DU. We really object to senseless, unscientific, unjustifiable pollution of our minds.

[humblebum]

58. Don't look now, but you're blowin' your case for "free thought." nt

[David Sky]

59. You really have no ethics nor rational arguments, both, yet you blabber on..

as if anything you said in this life was something someone should read or listen to.

This last comment, obviously out of desperation.........with no links, no quotes, no quote mining, just another "opinion".

I see you have run out of half logical thought for the evening.

Sleep on the concept of no Christ in your life, see if you can try to be a bit more ethical without such a burden to try to prove his status as your savior, I think you would actually feel relieved not having to defend him with every skeptic who chooses science over your resurrection fairy tale.

[humblebum]

61. Are you asking me to provide a link showing that "free thought" is

associated with atheism/secularism? I don't think the word "free" needs much explaining, but I might be wrong.

[David Sky]

63. So you are contradicting your earlier post here, right?

" you will be "programmed" to think as an atheist"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x305358

[humblebum]

65. Nope, no contradiction there. I guess what you see as contradiction,

I see as confirmation. That's bound to get a rise.

[darkstar3]

66. And once again, you state your agenda clearly.

[humblebum]

68. Agenda? OK, if you say so.

BTW. What is my agenda?

[darkstar3]

73. And I quote:

"That's bound to get a rise."

[humblebum]

74. Well, I guess if you consider a one-liner an agenda, then who am i

to stand in your way?

[David Sky]

64. Duped post..........self deleted

" you will be "programmed" to think as an atheist"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x305358

[humblebum]

56. You said:

"you refuse to ... look that far beyond your vision." Well, if you are the one who says there cannot possibly be any existence beyond what you see...etc., then who is the one that refuses to look beyond their vision?

Must be that free thinking stuff again.

[David Sky]

57. Did you just quote mine my statement? How insincere for someone who CLAIMS to

be a "Christian"!

I will not dignify your comment with a reply about the scientific method, suffice to say, we already KNOW you are against science, and in favor of your own brand of mythology.

Shame on you for having to edit my post in order to make your obtuse and highly arrogant and prejudicial fanatic point.

[humblebum]

60. Uh? Well. So you mean when any Christian or other religious scientist

uses the Scientific Method, they are not really using the Scientific Method? Interesting.

[David Sky]

62. No, I don't mean that, and I honestly don't know what the heck you are

trying to imply that I said, but you failed miserably, and missed all logic along the way, in whatever you are trying to point out.

Bedtime for folks like you, your arguments are getting more and more light-weighted on the rational level. Right now they are about as close to weightless as a feather comes when falling with a marble from the tower of Pisa.

[humblebum]

67. Now back to the point about using ridicule as a method of argumentation:

“I believe there's probably a giant Crucifiction image on those glasses blurring your view of reality.”

“shows a severe lack of sophistication of brain power, and a sadistic desire to attempt to arrogantly undermine factual evidence with your un`-testable opinions.”

“Christianity is like a Penis. Fine to keep it to yourself, but don't whip it out, show it around, and force it in front of my face, or worse, down the throats of my children.”


Isn't the Gnu atheism just great?!

[darkstar3]

69. Ridiculous ideas and arguments require ridicule as an appropriate response.

[humblebum]

70. Then one would think that after a while, you would stop making them. nt

[darkstar3]

71. Aaaaaaaand I'm in a Monty Python sketch again.

I'm sorry, I thought I said I'd like to have an argument, please.

[humblebum]

72. Sorry, your time is up. nt

[humblebum]

48. What claim? Is there something I missed? nt

[laconicsax]

49. That's a question you should ask yourself more often. n/t

[LeftishBrit]

75. Wow

PLEASE tell me that you're not against the Enlightenment! I may be misunderstanding you, but that's what your post sounds like.

What is so evil about the Vienna Circle?

What *is* 'organized atheism'? You keep using the term, but sometimes you seem to use it to mean 'government-enforced atheism' - which I agree is just as evil as any other government-enforced belief system; and sometimes to refer to any situation where people speak publicly about their atheism; and sometimes to refer to obscure academic philosophical schools, or small organizations, which I wouldn't have heard of if not for you - e.g. I'd never heard of Joseph McCabe in my life!

I am not a member of any atheist organization, any more than I'm a member of any synagogue or church, and I don't care what anyone else believes; so long as they don't (1) treat me as an inferior citizen or an enemy of the state because I'm an atheist; (2) seek to impose religiously-based 'moral' laws on the state; (3) smear and defeat liberal and secularist candidates or parties in favour of right-wingers; (4, and related to all the above) imply that secularists and atheists (or pro-choice or pro-gay-rights candidates) are unfit for political office, or are not 'people of conscience'.