‘Women Atheists Are Genuinely Considered Monsters’

[GSOgymrat]

Interesting interview. I'm adding Village Atheist to my reading list (although $22.45 for an e-book is pretty pricey!)

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/village-atheists-history-nonbelief-united-states/499520/?utm_source=yahoo

... Schmidt: Because there was such an ideal of pious femininityâ€"women are supposed to be pious, women are supposed to go to churchâ€"there was greater horror associated with a woman being an atheist than with a man being an atheist. Male atheists are bad. Women atheists are genuinely considered monsters.

So that puts a lot of pressure on somebody like Elmina Drake Slenker or other women atheists to say, “Being an atheist does not deprive me of these maternal ideals.” Slenker writes domestic fiction in which freethinking, atheist women are also incredible housekeepers and homemakers. She wants to make sure there is no conflict over 19th century ideals and atheismâ€"and no man has to worry in the same way she has to worry.

She is also much more interested in rethinking the marriage relationship, birth control, and reproductive rights. That’s something a lot of the freethinkers and atheistsâ€"the men around herâ€"want to avoid. They see the issue as too controversial; that’s not an issue they’re willing to engage.

But she’s willing to engage it. And that gets her arrested for obscenity. ...

[TomFoolery]

"Being an atheist does not deprive me of these maternal ideals.” Slenker writes domestic fiction in which freethinking, atheist women are also incredible housekeepers and homemakers.

What if I'm an atheist, hate kids, and have zero interest in being a homemaker? What circle of hell does that condemn me to?

[Nonsensei]

What if I'm an atheist, hate kids, and have zero interest in being a homemaker? What circle of hell does that condemn me to?

It makes you literally Satan.

[Hydra009]

Green: You talk about the perceived oddness of “woman atheists.” How have the experiences of women who are atheists differed from those of men historically?

Schmidt: Because there was such an ideal of pious femininityâ€"women are supposed to be pious, women are supposed to go to churchâ€"there was greater horror associated with a woman being an atheist than with a man being an atheist. Male atheists are bad. Women atheists are genuinely considered monsters.

Is this at least part of the reason why there are more male atheists than female atheists in the US (56% to 44%) - atheist women are more vilified by society than atheist men?  My impression was that atheists were vilified across the board - that female atheists suffer more or less the same slings and arrows as their male counterparts.  Is this incorrect?

It's not like they roll out the red carpet in the deep South for male atheists.  If anything, a perniciously common argument - typically directed at male atheists - is that to join the atheist community is to cannonball into a revolting sea of know-it-all neckbearded males with mathematically little chance of romancing a female atheist and to face swift rejection by any devoutly religious woman.

Green: You say in your book that “freethinking secularists imagined a long, bitter, and ongoing war between science and religion.” Why do you say that battle is imagined?

Schmidt: Historians of science now argue that warfare language around science and religion is a creation of secularist freethinkers. A lot of the time, say in the aftermath of Darwin’s Origins of Species, what you find is all these scientists in universities who are completely capable of merging a Darwinian science with a kind of progressive, Christian worldview. I wanted to acknowledge that while at the same time emphasizing that for some freethinkers there really was a warfare. That’s exactly how they saw it.

While it is true that some religious people accepted this new discovery, there has been no shortage of opponents.  Darwin took great pains to mollify his religious audience - anticipating religious backlash - and even then, it prompted a furor that's been raging ever since, despite the scientific consensus.  So yes, there is a conflict.  And no, it's not imagined.

And more broadly, I'd argue that scientific methodology is toxic to religion.  On one hand, we have systematized knowledge gleaned through observation and experimentation - a world of parsimony, falsifiability, and empiricism.  On the other, we have dogma and faith.  It takes a very special sort of person to juggle these two polar opposites.

And frankly, there's something extremely bizarre about how an otherwise logical and meticulous mind can work out the math to put people on the moon and then seriously believe that the sun and the moon literally stopped in place for a full day (one wonders how the time was kept) so that Joshua's army could slaughter the Amorites.  My impression is that this is not a stable mental situation.

A lot of times, secularists want to imagine themselves as wonderful progressives in a really pure and clear wayâ€"that they’ve been on the right side of history. And there’s evidence for that. But if you look at the statistics on atheism, it’s very white, male group. Historically, you could see that as well. The cartoonist Watson Heston, for example, assumed a white, masculine model for the atheist nonbeliever.

Sometimes they want to come to the defense of a religious minority against the Protestant majority. Sometimes, because they don’t like religion across the board, they’re just going to mock Mormons. In their long-term view of history, religion is going to disappear. So how much solidarity do you really want to have with religious minorities if you think ultimately rationality is going to wash it all away?

Well, Mormonism is imminently mockable.  South Park taught us that.

But yeah, I'll go to the bat for religious people - minority or not - if it's clear that their rights are being violated.  I don't want there to be a religious test for office or to prohibit free exercise of religion, for example.  I still think rationality is ultimately going to prevail, though I doubt religion will disappear entirely.  Just because I'm at odds with religion doesn't mean I have to be monstrous towards religious people.  I don't see a contraction in that statement.

[doorknob]

I'm a woman and this is news to me. I feel more vilified by Christians for being atheist and I doubt it has anything to do with being a woman.

[PickelledEggs]

It makes you literally Satan.

That's so hot

[PickelledEggs]

I like monsters.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

I like monsters.

Fair and balanced (like Fox News).

[PickelledEggs]

Fair and balanced (like Fox News).

Batman isn't a monster, he's an anti-hero

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Batman isn't a monster, he's an anti-hero

Yeah, but come on, when am I ever going to have an opportunity to use that joke again?


Fair and balanced (like Fox News).

[PickelledEggs]

Yeah, but come on, when am I ever going to have an opportunity to use that joke again?


Fair and balanced (like Fox News).

AAHHHHHHH  Alright. I'll let you have it lol

[drunkenshoe]

Atheism and Women entry of Conservepedia potentially can burn a child's brain and seriously damage some naive adults.

Just high lights. The rest in the page also shows how they use a lot of conflicts in atheist groups to brainwashpeople. They quoted James Randi ffs. lol

Women, history and atheism
See also: History of atheism

Paul-Henri Thiry
In the 1770s, the French philosopher Paul-Henri Thiry observed a dearth of female atheists.[19] The English poet Edward Young (June 5, 1681 â€" April 5, 1765)  wrote to satirically signal earthly apocalypse: "Atheists have been rare, since nature’s birth; Till now, she-atheists ne’er appear’d on earth."[19] In a letter written in the 1760s, the English essayist Bonnell Thornton wrote: "Good God! A Female Atheist! … One is not half so shocked at the idea of a Female Murderer; A Female Murderer, in the worse of senses, of her own children, of herself."[19] In 1813, the prominent doctor Thomas Cogan (founder of the Royal Humane Society) declared:"Men contemplate a female atheist with more disgust and horror than if she possessed the hardest features embossed with carbuncles."[19]

While the high rape reporting rate in Sweden is promoted as 'Islam is all about rapin' by the 'secular' western media, it is promoted as 'atheism is all about rapin' by the American Christian nut jobs.

Take that atheist men, ya rapists!

Secular Europe and domestic violence
See also: Secular Europe and domestic violence and Atheistic Sweden and rape


Sweden is one of the most atheistic countries in the world.[27] In Sweden, 81 percent of women said they had been harassed at some point after the age of 15 - compared to the EU average of 55 percent.[28]
In March 2014, the Swedish news website The Local published an article entitled Sweden stands out in domestic violence study which declared:

“   A new EU review of violence against women has revealed that one in three European women has been assaulted, and one in twenty has been raped, with the Scandinavian countries at the top of the league tables.
In the Scandinavian countries, in contrast, around half of the women reported physical or sexual violence, which researchers at the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights said could have several explanations...

In Sweden, 81 percent of women said they had been harassed at some point after the age of 15 - compared to the EU average of 55 percent. After Sweden, which had the highest rate, Denmark, France, the Netherland and Finland all saw rates above 70 percent. The EU member state with the lowest rate - 24 percent - was Bulgaria.[28]

”
Sweden is one of the most atheistic countries in the world and the website adherents.com reported that in 2005 46 - 85% of Swedes were agnostics/atheists/non-believers in God.[27] Sweden also has the 3rd highest rate of belief in evolution as far as Western World nations.[29]

See also: Atheistic Sweden and rape and Sexual immorality and Sweden

For more information, please see: Irreligion and domestic violence

My favourite:

Atheist women and sexuality
See also: Atheism and sexuality

Research indicates that religious women (especially evangelical/low church Protestant women) are more sexually satisfied than irreligious women.[35]

For more information, please see: Atheism and sexuality

And there is this pleeding everywhere...Pleaaaaaseeeee see <insert title>.

[GSOgymrat]

But yeah, I'll go to the bat for religious people - minority or not - if it's clear that their rights are being violated.  I don't want there to be a religious test for office or to prohibit free exercise of religion, for example.  I still think rationality is ultimately going to prevail, though I doubt religion will disappear entirely.  Just because I'm at odds with religion doesn't mean I have to be monstrous towards religious people.  I don't see a contraction in that statement.

I don't think religion will ever disappear. Perhaps because of this belief I am more invested in secularism than atheism. Whether rationality prevails depends on whether it is valued and whether it is taught. Humans are not rational by default, we are emotional and reactive. Atheism is a conclusion based on rational thought and skepticism, which is why there are comparatively few atheists. Creating a secular government and a culture where people of different faiths can coexist is a more feasible goal than everyone becoming atheist, or Christian or Buddhist. Me treating religious people poorly doesn't work toward the goal of a secular society.

[GSOgymrat]

Research indicates that religious women (especially evangelical/low church Protestant women) are more sexually satisfied than irreligious women.

People who have only eaten at McDonalds probably believe they make the best hamburgers.

[drunkenshoe]

People who have only eaten at McDonalds probably believe they make the best hamburgers.

Lol. Or rather Christian men being 'naturally' entitled to make a judgement about the female sexuality, just wrote that down because that's must be the god's truth.