So I'm doing some work with another member of A|N and we're doing some research on the intersection of gender, feminism and faithlessness. I've come up with a (very rough, very ugly) typology sort of piece about how feminists are religious (or not). It is based mostly on my own experiences and observations as well as some of the trends I've noticed in research about feminism and religion.

This very rough typology can be found as a google doc here:

I would appreciate it if any of ya'll with an interest look into it, tell me what categories I'm forgetting or what aspects need tweaking or if I'm just plain doing it wrong. Also, if you have ideas about how to integrate non-Abrahamic religions (i.e. not Judaism, Christianity or Islam) I'd be delighted to hear them so I can figure out how to include them.


Edit: I've been editing the doc based on input I've received from several arenas. So make sure to check back!

Thanks for stopping by! :)

Views: 114


You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by TNT666 on March 18, 2013 at 10:48pm

The Cotton Ceiling This Week

March 17, 2013

It’s been a year since I first spotted a small listing for a Planned Parenthood male-only seminar curiously titled “The Cotton Ceiling”. If you’ve never heard of it you can read about it here:

A lot of lesbians were sort of shocked by the Cotton Ceiling- a series of closed-to-females seminars designed for transgender males to tackle the “problem” of lesbian refusal to have sex with males. Lesbians were shocked, but not surprised. Dykes had long been aware of the male takeover of lesbian spaces- it’s been going on for years. Every public womon-space, from book groups to dances to music festivals to record companies to bars has witnessed the “transition” of the same creepy straight dudes who imposed themselves and haunted, sentry-like, the corners of our spaces,  into “transwomen” who now claimed they “were” lesbians.

In 1981 Victoria Brownsworth described the emergent phenomenon of transgender males who demanded entry into dyke spaces, followed by demands that such spaces should revolve around them and their “male lesbian” wants and needs: “ When we talk about the role of male-to-female transsexuals in the women’s movement as a whole and the lesbian movement in particular I feel we are talking about the ultimate in male power-tripping.”

Read the rest here.

Comment by sehkmet on May 25, 2011 at 10:16am


I just read the latest version of your typology.  It is very rough, as you say, but shows a lot of thought.  I think all of the categories apply equally to men and women.  Feminists do have the added reasons you stated, but the categories are hardly particular to feminism.  The only way they can be considered feminist is if you tack the word feminist on to the category names.  I'm having trouble seeing how this constitutes a typology unique to feminist atheism.

Also the term "angry" feminist is a perjorative  long used to discount what women say, as in, "She's just an angry woman".  Portraying women as angry is a very old tactic.  Women aren't supposed to be angry in our society and thus calling them such makes anything they say suspect.

Comment by sehkmet on May 14, 2011 at 11:53pm

Sorry my link apparently doesn't work.  I'll try again if it fails again check out Adonis Mirror at  Here is an excerpt of Richard Leaders etymology of "misandry".  You will find it is not so ancient after all.


"The source most cited as authoritative in the defense of “misandry” is a webpage hosted by Random House: their Mavens’ Word of the Day selection (June 3, 1998) answers the question, this time posed by one Ben Doof. The name is likely a joke from the German for “I am dumb.” Nevertheless, the Maven (Jesse Sheidlower) answers it with all manner of seriousness. Although he admits that misandry is a neologism without any direct precedent, he feels compelled to toss his antifeminist admirers a bone by hinting otherwise, always without citation. He begins by setting a date for the first English use of “misandry” in the 1930s, never mind where or how it was supposedly used, only to immediately skip ahead to 1989, mentioning an academic anthology famous only for its simple inclusion of the word in the title.

Sheidlower also presents the idea of a Greek misandria, without specifying whether it existed in Ancient or contemporary Greek. While he states that the English word is “probably” a re-coinage from the “genuine” article, he does so after the damage is done: readers, who exist in a society that overly values Classical material, likely came away with the impression that the phenomenon of misandry must be real as it was a problem also faced by men thousands of years ago. They too, required a word for it. What he does not say, however, is that his misandria was not found in any original Greek text but in a single scholium—a margin note penned by a reader—of a copy of Euripides’ Andromache. One, possibly two, uses of a word in 2,400 years of recorded history does not inspire great faith in anything “genuine” at all: a very poor choice of words by The Maven."

Comment by Rikka on May 6, 2011 at 8:48am
also, I'd like to say that the reason I use misandry is because it shares language roots with the word misogyny (I'm a little bit of an ancient language nerd).
Comment by Rikka on May 5, 2011 at 11:04pm
subaltern oppression, hoy!
Comment by TNT666 on May 4, 2011 at 11:19pm
As far as spell checking goes... when I activate British English it is not recognised, but it is recognised in USA English... But I agree with you on the misuse of the term. It is one thing to hate the one you subjugate, and it is an entirely different thing to hate the one that subjugates you. It is the very same difference which applies to the earlier fights against slavery, there was no rational justification for slave owners to "hate" black people, but there was every reason in the world for black people to hate white people. If this was 500 years ago, I would expect such sentiments to have dissipated, but it's only been a couple of generations, so it absolutely normal to still find such sentiments in our Western post African slave society. Right-wingers and women haters attempt to equate the ethical weight of misandry to misogyny, in order to make them seem of similar nature/value, but they are not. It is about the givers and the receivers of subjugation, they are eons from being of similar weight.
Comment by sehkmet on May 4, 2011 at 10:57pm

Oh dear,

Misandry is a fairly recent term developed by anti-feminists in the late 80s.  It doesn't appear in many dictionaries yet, as is evidenced by the fact that your spell check underlines it.  Please read the link, authored by a man, on the subject.


Comment by Rikka on May 4, 2011 at 6:24pm
sehkmet, I've see it in (admittedly older) feminist research, which was the only reason I used it here.

I've also had the interesting pleasure to meet a few women who border on misandry.
Comment by sehkmet on May 4, 2011 at 4:22pm


The term "anti-man or feminazi" is generally used by MRAs and extreme conservatives (the term was coined by Rush Limbaugh).  This is a deeply insulting term.  Having been a feminist for a long time, I think the term you might be looking for is separatist.  I don't know of or believe there are feminists that are anti-man.  At most there are women who are separatist feminists.  During the 80's some of these women formed communes and their own businesses in order to avoid oppression.  But they didn't hate men, most of them had male family members and sons they loved dearly.  It is an extreme movement, a turning away from a society they didn't want to be part of.

There are many good books on feminism and especially its history you might want to consult before writing about feminism.

Comment by Rikka on May 4, 2011 at 11:28am
The word militant isn't in there anymore, just so everyone knows :P



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service