Skr-one human, you said
..most women need to be a part of a community. I wish that we could create non wow new age or religious community,... [emphasis mine]
Part of creating a community is emotional bonding. I don't think it's going to work "without the wow." I recommend the Wonderism group's videos if you've never heard of secular wow.
IMHO this 'community' stuff is the consequence, rather than the cause. Once women were pressed into submissive status, they turned to each other for consolation, comfort, and belonging. Previous to patriarchal religions, women could relate equally to males and females. I really don't think women are inherently more communal than men. In fact, I suspect a great percentage of women are quite solitary, used to working on their own, and spending time alone. If you think back to hunter-gatherer societies, which is the largest component of our evolutionary history, men did the group activities probably more than women since hunting big game needed tight collaboration, whereas capturing small game and collecting plants did not require such a tight-knit group effort, solitary efforts were just as useful.
I agree Judy... there is no way that I am going to spend time "arguing" about god during an outing. Actually, that was why I liked my atheist outings in Florida, cuz god talk was rarely on the menu. We discussed social change, politics, health (we met in a pub and all the males ate pub fare :)
There were usually 15-20 people, so little groups tended to go in different topic directions. I'm sure at some point someone discussed rock music and professional sports, but I am not too aware of those.
Unfortunately, out of that crowd, there were only 3 regular women, and 3-4 occasionnals. Two of us regulars were extroverts, whereas the other regular and occasional females that showed up tended to be more introverts. As far as the males go, it was pretty nerdy :)
Out of the entire group, only 3 of us had a science background, which I think was typical since this group were more in line with Humanism and politics rather than basic atheists and naturalists.
As for women in sciences at university... things are changing, but change is slow to come.
The other thing with the atheist groups is that the ONE science that mostly gets 'honoured' is physics, and that's an area of common least concern for women in sciences. The physics bias is so bad that physicist/atheist Phil Platt once called biology nothing but a mushy science (not to Dawkin's face of course). So even the women that do have a scientific background are looked down upon. Which leaves non science women even farther down the ladder of respect.
Taran, I think you are right that female atheists are in lesser numbers, at least on these kinds of sites. Now bear with me ladies, I'm a third generation atheist, there has never been room for spiritual mumbo jumbo in my brain. But I'm also a biologist and a feminist and ecologist and environmentalist and from years of reading thoughts on these matters, I do feel that women are more inclined to be close to nature, or in tune, or accepting of the natural world.
In the naturalist group, I brought up the philosophical proximity of transcendence to a "enlightened" life through religion or through technology. I think men in general are particularly obsessed with distancing themselves from the natural world through technological prowess. I'm not saying women never do this, just that we're less inclined to. And it's not cuz I'm some feminine wishy-washy cutsy type, I've played with boys/men all my life, and their toys, all their toys. But men and technology is like men and their toys, or men and their cars. Men and technology is an addictive compulsion.
I like some technologies, to a degree, but I don't want to be subdued by them.
Ultimately, I think life and happiness on this Earth boils down to more than just stats-factoids-history books. Patriarchal institutions have controlled most of those for as long as they've existed and to think there is no bias in the choices of research directions over the centuries is to be blind to reality.
-A man will state, without a second of thought to it, that the medicalisation of pregnancy is a good thing cuz it saves women's lives
-Not all women think that the medicalisation of pregnancy should be assumed to be a good thing. If anything, medicalising pregnancy is a sign of failure of a health system.
If women were dying in droves at birth before MEN took charge of birth, that means there was a problem with the system leading up to that pregnancy. I mean really, what percentage of wildlife die at birth? very few. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it's 2 things: lack of fitness, because of a sedentary lifestyle, lack of proper preparation during pregnancy. I'm not just comparing the last century or two, I'm taking this back through the millennia. I'd bet 1000$ that pre-religious women were not dying in droves during birth.
I love being an atheist, always have, I despise religions in all their incarnations and whether they have gods in the sky or on earth, whether they fat or skinny or their colour, I hate all forms of idolatry, whether godly or celebrity, even atheist celebrities.
But facts and stats do not clarify everything about life, and this is the crack women fall into, we simply need much more research decisions to be female driven, no matter the discipline.
It's possible that women don't talk about it as much or that they are more afraid to talk about it. Maybe, I don't know for sure.
I too dislike the idea about women being less rational (forgive me if I didn't say it right). I believe, and I was raised by a feminist who believed that women are just as smart and rational as men.
When I first came out as an atheist, my very first exposure to it was predominantly male. I was attending some kind of recovery group, an alternative to AA and I noticed that the leader, who was male, was calling on all the men in the room and not the women. I asked him, afterward why he did not call on any women, as there were at least 4 females in there, incl. myself. He told me I was being paranoid, but I said, "Okay, so what. I might have been. But how about next time, keep in mind that we would also like a voice."
I think the first your first statement is probably true, particularly for women who are doubting their faith. The Bible clearly states in lots of different ways that women are to keep their mouths shut and if they have questions, they should ask their husbands and no one else. There is also the stigma that they should hide themselves. The whole "cover your head in church so you don't attract angels with your hair" thing plants that seed, among other scriptures. I think that kind of teaching definitely keeps some women silent...not nearly as much anymore, though, I think.
I, too, grew up with the "boys are better than girls at math and science" idea. That's the biggest factor for women over the age of maybe 30 or so, I think. That was very commonplace. We're taught that we're not as good at it so why bother. I think women are definitely more emotional, but that definitely doesn't make us less rational. We just show our feelings more often in our arguments, which may be part of the problem as well. That doesn't make them less rational, but, for some people, they may see it that way. Just a thought...
Women have been, historically, systematically excluded from math and science. I'm old enough to remember the first women "allowed" into various so-called "non-traditonal" fields of study. I think one of the only ways working-class and poor women could have any impact on their communities was through church, and that's also one of the only outlets for social recognition, to this day, in many communities and countries. As to why women who are atheist aren't more vocal, I think some of the above applies. In my own experience, my recent brushes with very angry and insecure med in atheism tells me it's not, sometimes, a very welcoming place. I refer specifically to some of the misogynistic language and attitudes I've seen in SOME atheist men's youtube videos. Just this week, I unsubscribed from a channel where a young man went on a ramble about how some celebrity woman who'd been arrested for drunk driving should be raped to death by alligators and used really ugly words to describe her. This wasn't a one-time, passing vent; he repeated it several times. I stopped the video, wrote a comment as to why I'm unsubscribing, and left. Another thing I noticed: A man who, I was later advised, is "vicious" about so-called "men's rights" posted a video, to which I posted a video response. Several of his minions saw my video and assumed some stuff about me, simply because I'm female. One was so nasty, he made a thinly-disguised suggestion that he would find out who I am and where I live and drop my docs. Since I'm in a rural, fundamentalist xian town, he could have gotten me killed. And he did it because I'm female and he assumed things about that which have nothing to do with who I am. Why take risks of being "out," if SOME atheist MEN are not only not going to be supportive, but are willing to actually cause harm?
I JUST transferred a blog I wrote a little while ago that goes into detail about why I think Atheist females are very rare. It's not researched, per say, but it IS based on my extensive knowledge from the likes of Sir David Attenborough and Dr. Alice Roberts. I've watched so many hours of Sir David explaining animal behavior and how it developed that I could probably recite a large portion of his programs from memory and Dr. Alice has some wonderful insights to pre-historic human behavior. Just some conclusions I've come to based on what I know. Short answer is that Atheism seemingly lacks spirituality and that's something that females need more than men. That short answer sounds incredibly biased, but I swear it's a logical conclusion.
Short answer is that Atheism seemingly lacks spirituality and that's something that females need more than men.
And they forget that spirituality doesn't have to be linked to religion.
Funny see, spirituality no more has any claim to reality than religion does. For me it's all about this: we are TAUGHT, from the earliest age, to obey, because we are born with a vagina, nothing more nothing less.
That is nurture NOT nature.
I find the inherent cost of this conversation is mixing how religious mores have "taught" women to be, versus how we evolved to be. I value evolution much more than I value cultural mores.
I was not raised in these religious mores, so I don't have this demureness you speak of. Something that is taught can be overcome. IMO it's important to not fall into the trap of : "well that's just how we are", it's not.
I find it interesting that as an atheist movement that seeks liberation of all humans, that we keep promoting that it's "just how we are". We need to overcome this and recognise that if women are in reduced numbers in the public atheist community, it's that there is a lot of belittling and sexualisation of women in the "new atheism". This is not so prevalent on this site, but it is very present on other sites.
The new atheism (WASP without the P add the M for male) has reached a market of very angry imperialist males. It's how the new atheism is packaged. But it's not always how atheists were. This male top down attitude has only been in the atheist movement since certain recent popular atheist authors have changed the game. Personally, I'd rather we look toward other icons. We females CAN change and empower ourselves to define an atheist community that is more welcoming.