The recent incident between Shermer and P. Z. Meyer reminded me of an interesting topic from my point of view, but rather little discussed, that of gang atheism (of organization, eufemistic). In short, when a woman accused him on P's blog. Z. Meyer accused Shermer of raping her at a skeptics convention, and then other women would have testified that they too had been raped by Shermer, most of the atheists who make their living on P's blog. Z. Meyer reportedly defended Shermer, being almost completely insensitive to the suffering of the women who accused him. I've seen comments like the importance of atheism to 3rd wave feminism, i.e. Shermer is more important to atheism than the values of feminism. As if rape is about feminism, it would not be a criminal act in itself.
I met Shermer when he came in 2009 in Bucharest, held a conference at the Faculty of Philosophy. I talked to him, I asked him about his agent's contact, and gave it to me. On P. Z. I met Meyer this year, at the congress of humanists, but I didn't talk to him. As would be logical, humanism, related to atheism, should be very woman friendly, but unfortunately it is not so. Where does this discrepancy come from?? From history.
Atheism has existed since Antiquity, but in various forms, Buddhism itself is considered atheistic metaphysics. "Modern" atheism arose in a historical period when people believed in them, in their lives, they believed they could change nature, own fate. Social hierarchies were shaking, a new class, bourgeoisie, gain social influence. Probably the more rapid changes in society, the greater the optimism and confidence in progress. During this period, humanism appears, man becomes "the measure of all things". The man, but not the woman. Rousseau, one of the philosophers who inspired humanism, is harshly criticized by Mary Wollstonecraft in "Vindication of the rights of women" for his misogynistic attitude. In "Emille" he traces what today would be called "gender roles".
But things don't stop there. Contrary to what would seem logical, bourgeois revolutions, although women actively participated in them and even played a decisive role, did not lead to an improvement in women's rights, on the contrary, the 19th century represents a decline in the situation of women compared to the previous one. The influence of Protestantism on the middle class plays a role, but economic factors are most important. The industrial revolution destroys rural communities, where women had an important economic role, but they also worked side by side with men, and turns women into dependent housewives or if they work, they are exploited for blood, giving them less money than men, tradition successfully maintained until now. And yes, women worked in the hardest conditions, including in the mine, sure, it was also valid for children.
Against the background of these realities, Darwin's theory appears, in which the vision of the era was exactly reflected. Darwin's misogyny is proverbial. There has been speculation that the place of the dethroned Christian god has been taken over by the almighty man, sure, alb. Hyperbolizing biological differences (but not only) between the sexes dates from this period. Until then, the popular image was that the body parts of a sex, apart from the genitals, can be successfully translated to the other. at present, socio-biology, which preserves the Darwinian paradigm, it is the cultural phenomenon with perhaps the greatest role in maintaining gender roles and discriminating against women, perhaps more so than Freud's theory in his era. It's amazing how popular this theory is among young men of various political orientations, who recited his paradigms as "Our Father" in the Christian past. It's interesting how some socialists talk about the man as a provider, which is a capitalist construct based on the post-industrial family model, neglecting the role of women throughout history and in traditional cultures, but including economic data. Atheism, at least the institutionalized one, comes to set with "scientific" misogyny. After I wrote a book on evolution, I was introduced to real misogyny on the blog by lines like "you'll be born in science" (to which I replied that it was better than ejaculating in science, what would have happened if I had been a man), that feminism did not let me have children, although that was my intention. And again, contrary to what is believed, intoxication with misogynistic ideas, but on another level, it is also in developed western countries.
what to do? A new theory of evolution, leading to a truly scientific new socio-biology, to leave behind all this ideology. Perhaps this is one of the greatest services I can do to feminism.
