Where are the stroppy, vocal women Humanists?
Jeanne Rathbone
It is no surprise that men dominate the atheist and humanist community because men dominate the world, says Jeanne Rathbone.
Dora Russell, writing in the new Humanist in 1974 said “the astonishing fact of human history is that religion, political, social and economic thought have been the reserved as the prerogative of men. Our cultural world is the product of male consciousness”. Dora agreed with feminist philosophers who said that “We don’t want half of their world, we want to change it.”
As someone who has been involved with local, socialist, feminist and Irish politics since the late ‘60s, I am aware how skewed public life is towards the interests of men. The Labour Party then was in thrall to the needs and culture of the working class male, and Irish republican politics have always subordinated women’s emancipation.
Religions were invented by men. Religions are about the control of society by men. The Christian ethos towards women excluded them from public life and objectified them sexually. It is no surprise that women as sex objects resulted in a sex industry of prostitution, pornography and misogyny. However, the earlier Church was a powerful institution – it owned a third of the land in Europe. It was Catholicism, through its monastic system, that created the conditions and expansion of capitalism in Europe. After the reformation Protestant Britain further expanded its pursuit of wealth by colonial exploitation and the slave trade of Africans. This is the powerful cultural Christian influence that we have inherited. It is the law of the land that school assemblies should hold an act of worship, which is ‘broadly Christian’. The Tories introduced it and New Labour refused to rescind this nonsense. Yet, we are told we live in a secular society.
A seismic shift is needed to change this culture. This is the culture inherited by atheism, secularism and humanism here and in America which is dominated by males. The anti-God squad are all male. They won’t like to hear this and they will get defensive.
As you all know there has been a spate of books written by men recently criticising religion. They have become icons. There is the trinity headed by Richard Dawkins who wrote The God Delusion, then Christopher Hitchens joined in with his God is Not Great, so that he could try to show that he was cleverer and wittier than Dawkins. AC Grayling’s Against all Gods sounds very virile. There are others, usually academics from philosophy or science. There is much male posturing in this field. There is one with a pretentious title: Black mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the death of Utopia by John N Gray. He attacks them and Humanism claiming that it has its origins in religions. There are others – all a part of ‘the white male atheist syndrome’.
Dawkins, not a large man, has been referred to as God’s rotweiller and he seems to have been adopted as the macho patron saint of Humanists and atheists. His TV show attacking religion was subtitled ‘The root of all evil’. Well, if he thinks religion is the root of all evil and men invented religion ergo… (Is that a bit strong!)
Charlie Brooker, what a sweetie, seems to agree. In one of his G2 columns he wrote about his own gender, in a piece which reads like a manifesto for ‘A Women’s Political Party’. He says men “have made a testosterone–sodden pig’s ear of just about everything: politics, the economy, religion, the environment… you name it, it’s in a gigantic man-wrought mess. The world’s been one big dick-swinging contest.”
I blogged recently in a response to an e-petition to 10 Downing Street about Britain being a theocracy. A fellow humanist commented and took the usual position of the majority of English humanists/atheists. Beware, a few hackles will be raised so watch your blood pressure.
As an outsider, an immigrant not brought up in England, I find that most BHA members are, inevitably, C of E atheists: they are a product of their culture, which is that of a colonial power and the Church of England. The Church of England, having being formed from the libidinous proclivity of an earlier king wanting divorce, is seen as a hobbity, Vicar of Dibley quaint and harmless institution. This national treasure with the Queen, as its Supreme Governor and “Jerusalem” its anthem, is being sentimentally preserved and now regarded as “a bulwark against fundamentalism”. So, it seems that the monarchy and the C of E has become the epitome of Englishness and must be protected from extinction even by some humanists!
C of E atheists find that other religions are worse. The usual suspects are Catholic, Muslim and American evangelicals. This fellow Humanist cited Iran and 20th Century Ireland as examples of ‘real theocracy’. As an Irish person in the BHA, I am well used to comments and jibes about Catholic Ireland and how the ‘troubles’ in the north were entirely religious and not as result of British imperialism.
I think one of the main reasons why we do not hear from women atheist/humanists is that in this country it is usually only academics, writers, journalists and spokespersons that are called upon as experts on any topic. Recently, it would seem that atheist comedians have been accepted into this hallowed arena. This seems to have come from a need to show that we, Humanists, have a GSOH. I like to think I have one. This is why I do comedy. Reviews compared me to Dave Allen and Rab C Nesbitt but couldn’t find a female role model. I found her myself in Sheela-na-Gig.
I am also a member of the National Secular Society and subscribe to ‘The Freethinker – the voice of atheism’, whose letters pages are written by men quibbling and squabbling. They are the Keith Fletts of secularism. Even I was surprised at the misogyny of a Humanist group when I was invited to speak on “Does ‘to humanise’ mean ‘to feminise’?” Silly me, I thought it might be an opportunity to bring the issue of gender into the discourse! These masculine preserves are not really the sort of place that an ageing, raging feminist would enjoy for very long having had the warmth and fun of women’s groups. C’est la vie. It’s a man’s world.
Yet, this should be one area where you would expect feminists to agree that religion is a root cause of misogyny, inequality and violence towards women. We have the greater vested interest to challenge religion and its role in the suppression of women and its sop of offering a better life to come. We should baulk at its promotion and acceptance of things as the will of an almighty superman god. Religions are patriarchal, their raison d’etre is to control the masses. We are up against entrenched male power, misogyny and a capitalist, Christian culture that has persisted for centuries. So, why are we not railing at the forefront of the struggle to replace religion and irrationality with Humanism.
We need to hear from the feminatheists. I was heartened to see that there is a book, Women without superstition – no Gods- no Masters, edited by Annie Laurie Gaylor a compilation of the writings of 19/20 century women freethinkers which includes contributions from Dora Russell and our own Barbara Smoker.
So, do we need to form women’s humanist/atheist groups or a women only forum? I have seen an American atheist site, which asked why we hardly see or hear from women atheists/humanists and saw the responses from men! I do not want to hear what men have to say on this. I want to hear what women humanists/atheists think we should be doing about this.
I think it is crucial that the Humanist/atheist movement/lobby is and is seen to be somewhat representative of the population. I know we have a long way to go but addressing the gender imbalance is a start. Given the theme of optimism I am optimistic that there will be an exciting, funny and constructive response to this. It is important.
Jeanne Rathbone is a humanist celebrant, comedienne and blogger.
They are all on mumsnet. Seriously.
Just had my first ever look at Mumsnet being more of a gransnet sort of person. And Tim is right, a lot of them are there. But not all.
When researching for a talk I gave to our MK Humanist group about ‘Women in Religion’ I read three books which really brought home to me the extent to which everything is and nearly always has been male-dominated. Read these and if you’re a woman you’ll be as livid as I was and still am, and if you’re a man, well, you’ll probably feel a bit sheepish if not a little ashamed.
The most recent book is ‘Does God hate women?’ by Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom published last year. You need a strong stomach to read this one.The other two were published more than a century ago which says it all about what wimps we modern ‘feminists’ are.The first is ‘Woman, Church and State’ by Matilda Joslyn Gage published in 1893 and the other is ‘The Woman’s Bible’ by Elizabeth Cady Stanton published in 1893. The texts of these two are on the internet.
Well I’m one – and there are a lot of others. Greta Christina – Polly Toynbee – Joan Smith – Maryam Namazie – Katha Pollitt – Susan Jacoby – Paula Kirby – the list goes on and on.
I was a stroppy, vocal feminist long before I started calling myself a humanist. There are a few of us – too few. However, it doesn’t surprise me that there aren’t more of us. Organised humanism, like organised religion, is dominated by men, and many of them take themselves way too seriously and are far too boring.
I don’t often describe myself as a humanist, apart from when I’m being a celebrant or SACRE member. The term has become meaningless because there are so many woolly definitions of it floating about. But feminism is easier to understand and less easy to misrepresent. What right-minded rationalist could argue against the principle of gender equality?
I don’t know how old you are Jeanne, but I reckon you’re younger than me. I was active in the women’s movement in the 1970s, so the first part of the recent BBC TV series, ‘Women’, made me feel nostalgic. It wasn’t all wonderful sisterhood – I recall a group of radical feminists’ attitude towards me changed when I gave birth to a male child – but it was good to be with women who weren’t afraid to make themselves unpopular by challenging male privileges. It saddens me to hear women preface any criticism of inequality with the words, “I’m not a feminist but…” What’s wrong with being a feminist? Why do they do that?
I’ve been a stroppy, vocal person since my early teens, when I rejected religion and the gender status quo. I suppose I’ve had an advantage; I’ve stayed single (from choice), so I’ve never had to worry about upsetting a delicate male ego. I’ve noticed that being as outspoken as I am seems to bother a lot of the men I’ve come across in public life; they’re unused to women like me, even in the 21st century. Must live sheltered lives. One of my male friends likes to egg me on to say things that he’s thinking, but won’t say himself, the wuss. Never mind – I suppose you could say that’s role reversal.
It’s always amazed me that so little attention is given to the history of patriarchy and its connection with religion. Never mind all that virgin mother stuff (which is all very Oedipal), why can’t more people see that the monotheistic religions developed as a convenient way to destroy the previously matriarchal nature of society around Europe and the Middle East, and to replace it with a socio-economic system that exploited superstition to keep women under control and ensure that children’s paternity could be guaranteed? Richard Dawkins, the poster boy of atheism, didn’t bother much about that in his God book, did he? Who suffers the most from the excesses of religious zealotry? Women and children. If you doubt it, check out UN statistics, Human Rights Watch, and so on. We women are unclean, whores, the fount of all evil, don’t you know.
One of the biggest problems with religion, until now, has been the convention of deference to religious leaders, which is why Benedict, the misogynist old fart, must be apoplectic about the current backlash over child abuse. But have you noticed how many women, for the sake of a quiet life presumably, are almost as deferential towards the men in their lives? It would explain why so few married man clean lavatories, fill the washing machine, clean the bath after they’ve used it, and actually work longer than their partners, who go home from work to deal with domestic chaos and children (in no particular order). There really aren’t many “new men”. Should be ashamed of themselves.
I’ve always collected quotations. One of my favourites from the 1960s, in a battered old notebook, is from the Belgian philosopher and Situationist, Raoul Vaneigem: “Ceux qui parlent de révolution sans en référer explicement à la vie quotidienne ont un cadavre dans la bouche.” (“Those who speak of revolution without making it real in their daily lives talk with a corpse in their mouths”.) Nothing to do with the 1998 song by Ian Brown, who borrowed the line. Maybe most humanists don’t think of themselves as revolutionaries, but they could be. They won’t be, however, as long as they’re complacent about double standards. I don’t think anyone can claim to be a humanist if he or she isn’t a feminist too.
@Margaret
“What right-minded rationalist could argue against the principle of gender equality?”
The whole point about being a rationalist is to look at the reasoning behind things. If it’s possible to use reasoning to come up with an alternative world view then it’s just reasoning no right-wrong nor right-left about it. I can and do however, take it as a premise that, as Richard Dawkins says, we can “rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators” (Chap 11 , The Selfish Gene) and organise our lives to reduce the impact of our biological imperatives. If we ignore the biology, we will never move forward.
I’d be grateful if someone here can tell me who the main feminist associations / groups campaigning on feminist issues are in the UK?
Perhaps I think living in a patriarchal society oppresses men too. Perhaps I could empower myself and make it easier for others to empower themselves simply by not falling into the easy trap of playing whatever gender-role might be expected of me in any given situation. Perhaps I’m not saying because Ms Rathbone says she does not want to hear what men have to say on this. Or perhaps I just said it anyway, because perhaps I’m stroppy too.
Tom, who’s ignoring biology? Not me.
Antony, start here:
The Fawcett Society
Women’s Environmental Network
Womens e-news
Forward
The F-Word
The Women’s Library
Sorry – must have made a mistake with the link to Forward.
Oh for fuck’s sake don’t just moan and try to show you’re as clever as the “pin-ups”, why not actually start something?
Well, Jeanne, I expect you are really disappointed with the responses so far, and so am I. I agree with all you say and if there were a Women’s only Humanist forum I would definitely join and participate. I am not stroppy enough and not vocal enough but am prepared to try harder!
Thanks Margaret, that’s great! I’m particularly enjoying reading The F-Word.
Well, I don’t know about stroppy, but I wouldn’t say the BHA was short on women. The current President is a woman (Polly Toynbee) as are half their Vice Presidents are women. The last President was a woman (Linda Smith) and the one before that (Claire Rayner). About half their staff are women as was their former Chief Executive. The Vice Chair of their Board of Trustees is a woman and the last two chairs of their Board have been women. Two of the most voluble members of their parliamentary group – Baroness Massey and Baroness Whitaker – are women.
I would say that most Humanist men I have met have been at least political feminists. That is to say that they have stood up for the legal rights of women. After all, being a Humanist surely implies some commitment to human rights.
There can, of course, be a great gulf between political ideals and personal behaviour. I think it is then up to women to exercise some control over the men they interact with at a personal level. Point out to them inconsistencies between their ideals and their behaviour. Tell them its their turn to do this or that domestic task, etc. In other words, nag them.
And the gay ones hardly need nagging in the first place.
I can see advantages to single-gender forums. I expect it makes it easier to discuss some things. I’d quite like to join a male-feminists group. This forum is mixed. I feel that (above, when I first posted) I over-reacted to a single sentence in the article which strongly implied to me that what I had to say might be automatically disregarded before I’d even said it purely on the basis of my gender. Sorry for over-reacting.
Hi Diana – I really like what you’ve got to say. I agree that there are many ways for women to positively influence men. Perhaps I wouldn’t use words like control or nag myself, but certainly I can see the importance of effectively communicating thoughts, feelings and what you’d like to happen.
For someone not wanting to ‘objectified sexually’ she chooses an interesting rather old picture I see. Nothing stops this women writing a book – books don’t write themselves and it is not a patriacal conspiracy that she has not written hers. It’s always careless to stereotype ie ‘C of E atheists’ and RC and Budddist and Muslim etc etc, ‘warmth and fun at women’s groups’ not universally, certainly not in my memory! For myself women’s only groups are the dodo’s of debate .We’ve all been there done that. If we can’t sit down together now it’s our collective fault. I see no barriers to joing the debate and do not recognise the picture she paints at all.
Geraldine, “she”, or “this woman”, is called Jeanne. Even if you don’t agree with her, perhaps you might still be courteous.
Can I just say something that seems so obvious to me…
I think it’s deeply sexist to imagine that women have to be “stroppy” to be visible and to be making a difference!
It’s not like the humanist men I’ve met are very “stroppy” either. Jeanne keeps switching back and forth between big New Atheist authors and humanists she happens to have met as if that proves anything.
Every bha event I’ve been to has had plenty of women in attendance and I’ve never seen the slightest shred of the kind of suppression that is hinted at by Jeanne. We speak our minds just like the men and don’t have to be “stroppy” in order to do it. Until recently the BHA had a female CEO and they have a female head of campaigns now!
This isn’t to say that some of the more general points the author makes aren’t correct. Yes there are still barriers all over the place, yes most experts in most fields identified as such are still men. But this is hardly a problem contained solely within Humanism let alone the bha.
@ ‘Margaret ‘- very nice of you to stand up for ‘Jeanne’ but did ‘you’ not think ‘Jeanne’ could stand up for ‘herself ‘. Ha, ha.
Geraldine, Jeanne may not have noticed your rudeness, but I did.
‘Feminatheist’ – what a great term. Thanks, Jeanne. I’m going to use that term a lot, as it sums up what I always noticed even before starting to read on the subject – that the real misogynists (female as well as male, alas) just about always have some attachment to or influence from a religion, and that the only hope for equality lies in taking a rational, superstition-free worldview.
PS I would like to nominate Ayaan Hirsi Ali as a stroppy humanist who deserves everyone’s support.
Jeanne said, “So, do we need to form women’s humanist/atheist groups or a women only forum? I have seen an American atheist site, which asked why we hardly see or hear from women atheists/humanists and saw the responses from men! ”
and Andrea said,
“if there were a Women’s only Humanist forum I would definitely join and participate.”
I don’t really get this. What would be the point of a women’s only forum? If I was convinced there was a need for one, I’d start one but, at the moment, I’m not. There are plenty of women posting at Think Humanism, a forum which was started and is managed by a woman. A few more women would be welcome, however…
http://www.thinkhumanism.com/phpBB3/
I really think this gender agenda stuff is a real distraction. I’m a feminist and secularist. There are too few of us humanists, male and female – we all need to stick together to bring about a secular UK. All together now: “One law for all.” Of course men dominate groups. So what? Dominate back if you must, but I think it would be a more productive use of your time if you spent your energies on fostering cohesion than separation. Humanists have a massive amount in common which surely overrides mere gender differences. HUMANist -there’s a clue in the term! I once went to a writers’ group. There were 8 men and one other woman. She happily invited to a female-only writing group and I answered thank you, but I don’t see the point of women-only writing groups, because we’re all writers. I’m sorry to say the woman’s response was embarrassment, whereas a few of the men afterwards clapped me on the back for “standing up to her”. Both the woman’s and the men’s responses were a bit silly. There are more differences to be found within genders than in people of different genders who are like-minded. Secularism is too important an issue for us not to stick together.
I have enjoyed this read..thank you..
my story to illustrate the story…
I began parenting, a dad, at age 21 and but for about three years I have parented ever since. I have six children… two as step and four born through my two marriages..the oldest 46 and the youngest just 16. I am 58..Karen was already 9 when I met her mum. I have parented alone for over half the time..being widowed twice..in 1985 and 1997
I prefer the company of women..by inclination…. and then circumstance creating a woman’s environment and discourse as I grew up with the children and worked part time..and in recent years..away from work with depression..worn out and lonely too acutely at times
So what have I learned in the woman’s world I came into about gender and secularism..coincidental worlds of oppression or one birthed by the other…religion displacing matriarchy and making patriarchy?
there is, in my experience, no question….its definitely gender which matters..one word..violence …
and definitely there is a space needed for discourse which belongs to women…gender oppression is inescapable..try as hard as I may as a man to shift from the socialiased bits and pieces which inhabit my behaviour…there are times when to be heard women talk with one another….its the demands from that talk which very often have described what we do next..list above..and what i do closer to home..
I think Richard Dawkins’ writing is beautifully put together..expressing so much of what I felt was so dark and harmful from my religious childhood ..my daughter found herself being really offended by what she feels is his unforgiving criticism of her right to explore meaning..including a religious interpretation..from her secular childhood ….but also with her maternal Jewish identity given in ways of living where she approved those norms of family and personal and social cohesion created by a religious tradition and a specific understanding of how to make things work better
religion offers societal ways of joining up…and there are lots of others…what makes humanity drive relentlessly to war and self-harm…that is definitely to do with gender..male violence..literal and indirect as language and symbols..dominating whatever the social norm of control
..feminatheism will do for me as the intro to lots more talking on our humanist website….thanks again
I am certainly stroppy and opinionated, but my “spiritual” needs are very simple. Having spent my formative 18 years where my beloved grandmother and my mother were devoutly Christian, and my dad was agnostic, I then went away to HE and developed my own views – initially agnostic, and ultimately anti-theistic due to the destructive forces that only religions in their various forms can impose. I believe that I am a “kind” and socially responsible individual, that “male” or “female ” superiority is irrelevant, that religion doesn’t need to tell me how to behave properly, and that if everyone – male or female – simply treats all those they encounter with the respect and consideration that they would wish to experience, then humanity has a bountiful future. I do not wish to undermine those who have a religious conviction, although I reserve the right to challenge their beliefs, but I absolutely support the view that religion is NOT a pre-requisite for a moral, socially responsible, or compassionate life.
I was a feminist before I also realised I was a Humanist too. When I joined the BHA those concerns about the world being man-made and male dominated didn’t go away.
It is quite evident that women are very well represented in the BHA. The BHA is a well respected organisation that has made great progress in putting across a reasoned challenge to the effects and privilege of religion and in promoting a Humanist viewpoint.
This has been achieved mainly through having paid staff and distinguished supporters who are the spokespersons for the BHA at a national level and through active members of local groups like Margaret Nelson in Suffolk. As our website states our policies are based on principles informed by members with the support of “Humanist Philosophers, scientists and other experts”. Needless to say, there are few women on the distinguished supporters list. Ditto with the Honorary Associates of ‘New Humanist’ and its contributors and the National Secular Society. I still believe that acceptable spokespersons in Britain for causes are academics, writers etc or the paid staff/committee members of organisations/institutions. It is understandable that they want to be seen as a respectable and acceptable part of the establishment. They do not want mavericks or ‘loose cannons’. However, I think there have to be those who are ‘outside the pale’ and us Irish know about all about ‘being outside the pale’ especially if we come from the west where Cromwell tried to banish us with his dictum ‘To hell or to Connaught’. But that is another story or ‘sin sceal eile’ as we say in gaelic.
The response to my query was much as I had expected. I knew that some people would not like the description that the BHA membership was mainly C of E atheists. It is only a description just as I am an Irish, Catholic atheist. I’m glad to be in the BHA compared to the Humanist association of Ireland. I’ve just read an article in the current H1! – the Humanist Ireland magazine – where the author drew conclusions from the Mars/Venus, male/female, atheist/religious nexus and stated that (in Ireland): ‘atheists tended to be male, well educated, between 25 and 35, sarcastic and individualistic’. I assume the whippersnapper is describing himself. He then compared them to the two stereotypes of older, blued dyed hair, mass goers and their younger ‘spiritual’ counterparts seeking her inner child/karma. Also the HAI only meets in Dublin making it a rather exclusive club. I shall be writing to them!
My point in posing the question ‘Where are the stroppy, vocal, women Humanists and feminatheists?’ was to ask why women’s voices and visibility wasn’t more prominent outside of our cosy enclave of paid-up Humanists.
We should be doing whatever we can to get more women involved in public debate and policy around Humanism. I believe a thorough-going feminist/Humanist agenda would incorporate all the big issues that confront us at this time. If we want a sustainable, egalitarian, rational, humanist world then we need to be setting out our philosophy with women involved equally. It would probably be socialist, republican, feminist, cooperative, anti-capitalist/globalisation, ecological, anti- war, etc. etc. Politics is now so concerned only with the short term. We need to think big and bold. One very obvious tactic would be for women to come up with our own agenda in a women only space but beyond the confines of the BHA. There are other existing networks that we could tap into. I reckon there must be thousands of feminatheists and female Humanists out there -just as Claire Rayner and Linda Smith acknowledged that they were Humanists long before they became members of the BHA.
I was not really surprised at the reaction from those commenting on my query. I reckoned a few bolshy men would have their say and the older women to say ‘been there, done that’ now I want to be in a mixed, grown-up group. One even complained about my photo – she must reckon that I should have used my latest Freedom Pass photograph! My remark about spokespersons for Humanism having to have written a book before they are considered an ‘expert’ was also lost on her as she ticked me off for not having written one myself. Another commentator who seemed a bit cross and is probably male wrote ‘For fuck’s sake don’t moan and try to show you’re as clever as the pin-ups’ told me ‘to actually start something’. It seems that s/he didn’t think I was trying hard enough – that’s a ‘could do better’ then.
The women who only like mixed gender groups should note however that girls do better in single sex schools for various reasons and that mixed schools are preferred by the parents of boys because of the civilising effect of the girls! The conclusion is that the any suggestion of women atheists/humanists coming together to stir things up is inimical to those few who commented from the readership of HumanistLife. Of course, I appreciated Margaret’s response- she is usually good value and stroppy and I hope Andrea gets more so as she has nothing to lose up there in Milton Keynes. Now that we are in the throes of an election we should remind ourselves of how the suffragettes organised and campaigned for women to get the vote on a par with men, less than a hundred years ago and what a stink they created to get noticed! I am not suggesting that prison, hunger strikes, being tied to parliament railings and smashing windows have to be the way to get noticed but I conclude that the hard core, outspoken feminatheist/humanist stroppiness and cussedness will have to happen outside our little, cosy circle and with some younger, feistier, funnier, more energetic women to carry the torch. Amen.
Thank you Jeanne, and more power to your feminist elbow. My son often says, “You been stirring things up again Mother?” Very happy to share my spoon.
It’s disappointing that the discussion has got this far without anyone mentioing Ariane Sherine, who had the original idea for the Atheist Bus Campaign.
It’s also disappointing that nobody has noted that of the five winners of the NSS’s Secularist of the Year award since 2005, three have been women (Evan Harris and Lord Avebury won jointly, so I’m counting them as one).
Jeanne cites that classic compilation, “Women without superstition”. A fine book, I agree. But it was published 13 years ago. The more recent “Does God Hate Women”, by Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Benson has already been mentioned. What about the books by Ayaan Hirsi Ali: a woman of genuine and immense courage?
The NSS has been strengthened in recent years by the involvement of a number of women activists on its staff and council of management. I could mention the current vice-president, Carla Revere – and her predecessor, Anna Behan. Zoe Cox recently joined the council, and Elizabeth O’Casey has now been on for a while. There may not be a new Barbara Smoker in the wings – but maybe a new Barbara Smoker is not what is needed in the 21st century.
We do need more, and more active, women in the movement. But to write as though nothing has changed is unfortunate. It saddens me that the real examples of women doing precisely what Jeanne apparenty wants them to do are completely invisible to her.
Jeanne also urges the need for “mavericks”. Possibly she thinks of herself as some kind of “maverick”, although there’s little in her contributions to support that. Her agenda is the usual predictable grab-bag : “socialist, republican, feminist, cooperative, anti-capitalist/globalisation, ecological, anti- war…” It just becomes a blank recitation after a few years, doesn’t it? Slogan slogan slogan, shout shout shout. There’s no connection, any more, to social reality, no indication that the political analysis has moved on at all since the 1920s.
But the best/worst bit was when Jeanne said:
“we should remind ourselves of how the suffragettes organised and campaigned for women to get the vote on a par with men, less than a hundred years ago and what a stink they created to get noticed! I am not suggesting that prison, hunger strikes, being tied to parliament railings and smashing windows have to be the way to get noticed ”
There are a couple of problems with that, particularly coming from someone who declares herself a socialist.
First of all, most suffragettes were middle class women; this should be seen in the context of a situation where until the Representation of the People Act 1918, which abolished the property qualification, many men could not vote either. So “on a par with men” makes too many assumptions.
Secondly, how absurd to “remind ourselves” of what the suffragettes did to get noticed: hunger strikes, window smashing, bombings, arson etc, only to hurriedly disassociate yourself from them!
The suffragettes were not merely causing “a stink” in some public school kind of way. They were taking very specific, directed action, and adopted terrorist tactics. They took what they were doing very seriously. It may have been counter-productive, but they meant it, and not in some “stroppy maverick” way.
But having “reminded ourselves” of their example, Jeanne reduces their militancy to the rather pathetic “being feisty and funny”. Well, yes, feisty and funny is good. But it leaves the citation of the suffragettes looking like a rather sad pose. You’ve not *learned* anything from their example, except to completely reject it.
Finally, I was suprised at this infantalising sub-feminist illogic:
“The women who only like mixed gender groups should note however that girls do better in single sex schools for various reasons and that mixed schools are preferred by the parents of boys because of the civilising effect of the girls! ”
Accepting for the sake of argument that young girls do perform better in single sex classes, how does that support the case for *adult* women-only groups (I’m not *against* women only groups, but I am against the idea that they are a fundamental principle of feminist organisation)? I suppose like some versions of “multiculturalism” (the ideology rather than the principle of diversity), it’s attractive to the middle class careerists.
Finally, on the schools issue. What should a parent of a boy and girl do? Should they send their daughter to a single sex school, and their son to a mixed-sex school? In any case, there are almost no single sex primary schools in the UK in the state sector and only a few hundred secondary schools, so for most people choice doesn’t come into it at all.
The idea that girls exert a “civilising” effect on boys is gender stereotyping, and not something I’d expect to hear from a self-defined feminist. I do note the exclamation mark, so perhaps Jeanne doesn’t intend to be taken seriously. Or perhaps she means that is the parents’ attitude. The point, though, is that one huge study of 17,000 people found that although single-sex schools was associated with positive outcomes for girls, it made little difference to boys.
Just for the record, like.
Dan
(Jeremy Stangroom, not Jeremy Benson, was Ophelia’s co-author, of course. My bad.)
Why do strong women have to describe themselves as stroppy? You are not stroppy, you have strong views, you are entitled to them without having to adopt a negative label!
Karen said I am not stroppy, I just have strong views.
Anonymous Dan, the man accused me of “infantalising sub-feminist illogic” because I mentioned that girls achieve more in all girl schools and that girls are disadvantaged in mixed schools because of the presence of boys both in terms of topics taught and teacher time taken to keep the boys interested and that parents cite their preference for their sons to go to mixed schools because of the civilising effect of the girls’ presence.
Enough of that.
I was glad to see that the BHA is putting on an event Humanism, Philosophy and the Arts and thought I would be interested in that but only to find that all the speakers, again, are male. Who decides to have a male only panel? Are they taken from the list of ‘distinguished supporters’ only? How do people get to be on that list? I am sure there are plenty more women who could be on that list if they were approached and that there are some women from the arts on the existing list from theatre, film, fine art, writing, comedy etc. Please get some women contributors because I would like to attend but not to hear about Humanism and the Arts from an all male perspective. Some come on BHA you could do better on this. I think that is strong enough from me for the moment!
@Karen. Assertiveness is what I aspire to. I thought the use of the word stroppy in the title was a great way to draw in an audience, but I do worry what gender-loaded assumptions words like stroppy or bolshy may conceal.
So Jeanne, whats the plan for increasing female contributers to the humanist movement? I’m in.
Jeanne said:
“the man accused me of “infantalising sub-feminist illogic” because I mentioned that girls achieve more in all girl schools and that girls are disadvantaged in mixed schools because of the presence of boys both in terms of topics taught and teacher time taken to keep the boys interested and that parents cite their preference for their sons to go to mixed schools because of the civilising effect of the girls’ presence.
Enough of that. ”
No Jeanne, I accused you of infantalising sub-feminist logic (as opposed to proper feminist logic) for trying to justify female-only organisation on the grounds that girls do better in single-sex schools than in mixed-sex schools.
Dan
By the way, Jeanne, thanks very much for raising my consciousness about the “Humanism, Philosophy and the Arts” thing – the fact it’s an all-male panel completely went past me when I read that leaflet (I think it mainly had be musing about post-modernism). I prefer transparency of selection criteria (over any quota system which would guarantee women were represented on the panel), so I definitely think you are asking the right questions!
Maybee ?? with 21st Century feminism its time we stopped wanting to be stroppy – that would make me sound like a teenager – I’m a bit old for that thank goodness.
I wouldn’t want to be remembered (if that is at all likely..) for ‘being stroppy’ – can I choose to be remembered for being intelligent and warm and one of those ‘sneaky’ people that calmly get their point across and ‘stay in the mind’ – the victory of brains and education over brawn (just remember… disagree with this and “I’ll punch your lights out!!” joke!!).
If women’s rights have ‘suceeded’ …. don’t I now have the ‘right to choose’ to be calm and quiet (never done the Dalai Lama any harm… but then he is a man (confused myself now….) I do like people with a quietly wicked sense of humour.
Others have pointed out that there is no shortage of female voices arguing the humanist cause and actively participating in (and leading) the BHA. Whichever way you look at it Jeanne, you have set up a straw man (sorry if you find that sexist, but it’s an accepted term!) and duly knocked it down.
Viewing this as a feminist issue is simply distracting. I’m reminded of the old adage: to a man (or woman) who only has a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
I am intrigued that, these days, activists in Christian churches are disproportionately female. And yes, my experience of humanist events and networks confirms that the activists there are disproportionately male. I also think that the men react differently to the experience of being an active humanist. For example, I cannot cope with the isolation of being a BHA local development volunteer. But seemingly it doesn’t bother the men at all. If most of the LDVs were female, I’m sure we’d have got s support network going by now, with regional meetings and so on. Then, I was absolutely traumatised by a debate with a University ISoc even though I wasn’t a participant. The men, including the speaker, seemed to take it on the chin. There really are some overall gender differences, and I say that a strong feminist.
Anyway, I would welcome an all-women humanist group.
Girls do tend to civilise boys and do better in single sex schools. Men do tend to shout you down and try to dominate every argument. Religion is more of a disaster for women than men. Some stereotypes are (largely) true. Can we stop pretending that boys and girls are exactly alike? I’d welcome a group that was largely female, perhaps with male guests.
I’m tired of men congratulating me on my logic, implying that most women are fluffy airheads. I come from a culture that told me to shut up when a man is talking so ex religious women might find it helpful. Still find men getting annoyed when I know more than them, and feeling the need to take charge of a discussion or counter every point with an example of how men suffer discrimination too, you know” erm not really as much though …
My thinking is that many women stay religious because of the huge community benefits and also it gives you the perfect excuse not to sleep with that bloke that keeps pestering you….
Ems writes:
“Still find men getting annoyed when I know more than them, and feeling the need to take charge of a discussion or counter every point with an example of how men suffer discrimination too, you know” erm not really as much though … “
I would have hoped that far from being a means to counter every point, us all suffering some degree of discrimination would be something which puts us all on the same side. I have no desire to dominate this discussion, by the way, only to be treated as an equal participant.
Ems writes:
“My thinking is that many women stay religious because of the huge community benefits and also it gives you the perfect excuse not to sleep with that bloke that keeps pestering you….“
How effective is a perfect excuse for getting rid of a man who wants to sleep with you? Certainly when I’ve been pestered telling him that I’m heterosexual has never worked as a short-cut for me. What I think is important here is that one should not require an excuse.
Looking back – Although a distinct minority there are many female humanist icons to inspire us. At humanistheritage.org.uk for starters we have, Mary Wollstonecraft, Aphra Behn, Annie Besant, Harriet Law, George Eliot & Hanna Sheehy-Skeffington. I stress it’s just a start – there are more to come but if anyone would like to suggest or write others they’d be very welcome.
Looking forward – there’s been plenty of good suggestions in the comments. Why not invite some to write for Humanist Life?