Atheism and Feminism

Over at BlagHag, Jen McCreight remarks that she has attracted considerable abuse for championing feminism within the atheist movement, and expresses the hope that such miscreants can be sidelined or even left behind.

I have not really been following all the fuss around this. My only real contact with it is the occasional rant from PZ on Pharyngula - which I'm aware is always from his point of view. I don't go to the conferences and I'm not likely to; even if I did, I'm a Privileged White Male and somewhat introverted, so the chances of my being affected either way by sexual harrassment policies are pretty slim (and that's what the Privilege is: not to do as you please, but the freedom from worry about what others will do). I will say that I have found over the years that place that are welcoming to women are generally much more pleasant to be in.

Whenever I hear of such controversies I am reminded of Rebecca West's comment on feminism: "I myself have never been able to find out what feminism is; I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute.". Women deserve the freedom to be neither of those things.

I'm not an atheist out of any sense of rebellion or superiority; I just consider it a much more justifiable position to take than any of the religions I've heard of. I regard atheism in a pure sense as quite orthogonal to a lot of other considerations, including feminism. There's no reason you can't be a stupid atheist, or a conformist atheist, and there are plenty of examples of both out there.

But when it comes to some kind of Atheist movement, the picture changes. The point of such a thing is to oppose the depredations of the various religions. I don't consider myself an a-stamp-collector-ist, because the stamp collecting movement doesn't make any attempt to impose itself on me. So an Atheist movement will naturally be drawn to the issues that are raised by organized religion, and to oppose the damage that they do. The best leverage available is to find issues where the Churches are on the wrong side of history, and highlight them - it reduces the undeserved deference given to religious views, and hopefully leads to less inteference from them. It forces them to change or go under, and either is an improvement.

One of the broad themes of the evils of religion is the oppression of women. Access to reproductive health care, the right to marry whom they choose and divorce those who turn out to be unsuitable, the right to education and work, the vote... all of these things are great steps forward for women, all opposed by religious organizations. Some, to their credit, have supported them (or at least acquiesced afterwards), but many oppose them still. So feminist issues are an obvious fit for an Atheist movement.

But I don't support women's rights just because I am an atheist and religions oppose them. I support women's rights because I think they are an integral part of the kind of civilized society I would like to see humanity build. A look at history and comparison of countries around the world will show that taking account of women's interests leads to a more prosperous, peaceful country. And in any case, why should women not be free to pursue their lives as they see fit, just like everyone else?

So in this I am entirely on Jen's side. By championing the right, the Atheist movement can make itself a respected part of society, and cement religious freedom for future generations. There is no downside. I may not agree with everything that results, but I am very confident it will be better than what is now and much better than what has been.

(Note: I see that I am already behind the curve: while I am commenting on her post, her idea has already taken off.).

Dangerous People

With the terrible events in Aurora comes another crop of preachers telling us that this is all because God has been ejected from public life. Others have pointed out that this portrays God as a petulant bully with poor aim; I want to examine the motivation behind such statements.

I have previously argued that a key component of morality is to assess who it is safe to have living near you. What these people are attempting to do is apply this test to those who do not follow their faith. "If you let these people live among you", they are saying, "then God will smite you". Atheists and muslims and secularists and no doubt Catholics and Mormons and any other denominations they don't like, are all dangerous people to be near.

Not that they want to come out and say that; instead, they complain that we have removed God from the public arena. That's right: unless everyone is required to worship their God, their way, he's going to throw a tantrum. Of course, everyone else will rightly object to that, for a variety of reasons. In many cases, because they think God will punish them for worshipping the wrong way; and in some cases because they think God will punish them for not making everyone else do it their way. And this is how religious wars start.

Once upon a time droughts and plagues and other disasters would result in a search for witches and heretics, and persecution for various minorities. We still have these instincts, but they are growing weaker - all we have seen so far is press releases. It is my hope that in the future such ridiculous claims will serve only to discredit their makers, as they should.

Already Rick Warren has disclaimed any such intent in his tweeting. Whether or not you believe that he never intended it, the important thing is that he saw it as a good idea to reject it. The side of reason is winning.