Who’s the sexist-est of them all?
It’s claimed that atheist men can be as bad as the religious ones when it comes to sexism and bigotry.
Just yesterday, an atheist man refused to shit a brick about The Big Bang theory being a patriarchy-affirming TV-show. Oh dear. I guess that puts him in the same league of sexists as the religious zealots who firebomb girls’ schools and force their women to wear burkas. “Atheist Taliban” as they are sardonically referred as.
Throughout our history, we’ve been plagued by men treating women as subhumans in Dawkins’ name. When their attitudes are challenged, they thunderously reply, “Who are YOU to question The God Delusion?”. And then they notice the straps of your school bag on your round, feminine shoulders and shoot you in the head. Because, you know, atheists are as bad as the religious extremists.
One of the principal failures of the radical feminists is the inability to develop more a nuanced approach on dealing with sexism. Their inability to differentiate progression from retrogression, and realize that some things are actually better than the other. To acknowledge some progress, and not just focus on perfection. Merely huffing, puffing and snapping, “Hmph! They’re all the same!” is not an intelligent way to handle these affairs.
The atheist movement is not devoid of sexists and bigots, and there’s a lot of work to be done. But once you’ve discarded “because God says so!” as an excuse to uphold the patriarchy, you’re left with one less reason to reject feminism. An atheist has an obvious advantage over a theist, as he can change his stance without the fear of angering God and risking a permanent place in hell.
We need to stop pretending that there’s symmetry in this lunacy, because there isn’t. Religions enforce misogynistic attitudes, atheism doesn’t. It’s because there’s no atheist rule book commanding its male followers that they are “superior to men”, or that they can have multiple wives, or that their testimonies are twice as valuable as women in courts, and make “their” women wear restrictive clothing. It’s a neutral position, which is far more susceptible to rational argumentation.
Lone Pakistani Liberal 
Am I good for a question? I know religon gets patriarchal sometimes, but the clergy makes it seem as if religon is extremely hard and women have no value in society whatsoever. What is the reason for this? Hunger for power?
You nailed it. Power.
Imagine a force that governs all universe, with the ultimate power to make or break you. By complicating religion, the clergymen establish themselves as the “middlemen”, without whom the people cannot possibly know what God wants or doesn’t want.
By claiming that the religion is simple, and encouraging people to study it themselves, they would have to relinquish their seat of power and the immense control they have over people’s lives.
My thoughts exactly. There is no concept of priesthood in Islam. There is only a bond between the believer and Allah.
I’m an equalist. I don’t understand why equality needs a gender reference in the name. In fact, I can’t see an ideology which uses gender in the name as representing equality at all. It’s kind of like saying ‘black power’ is about equality… hmmm
I agree. Although I think in most parts of the world, we do need “girl power” as affirmative action against centuries worth of damage inflicted by the patriarchal culture.
Though ultimately, as you suggest, the term “feminism” would need to be replaced by something more gender-neutral,
I hold that feminism is not about equality, but about women’s rights and this is why it is so often and so easily co-opted by those what want preferential treatment for women over men instead of equality. This happens so often that it is difficult to see feminism as being about equality.
You (inadvertently or not) confirmed this by stating that we need ‘girl power’ and affirmative action rather than equality. We can have that later on ‘AFTER’ women get what they want. Apparently what women want and equality are not exactly the same things?
I understand. I’ve written extensively about misandry and female-domination attitudes within the RadFem movement.
But affirmative action is still necessary. It’s not to give women some unique advantage over men. It’s to level the playing field for men and women.
Some authors describe the lack of affirmative action as a race where one athlete gets a 5-min headstart after which the organizer announces, “In the spirit of fairness, both athletes have to run the same distance. No special favors will be provided to either!”
I truly understand that there is a need to focus on positive actions, and for women’s rights, feminism is the proper place (is that the right way to say it? sounds wrong) I just think that there needs to be an equalist movement now, not a renaming of feminism later on.
While feminists are focused on women’s rights we need other people to be focused on equal rights for all, even though we’re supposed to have them already. There are a surprising number of marginalized groups in the USA and other countries and we’re behind schedule on social equality etc.
So, I’m an equalist. That means I support equality for women too.