In 2007, Matthew Chapman, the great grandson of Charles Darwin, spoke at the Atheist Alliance International and said “A feminist who believes in God is like a slave who has been freed but continues to live on the plantation.” He also noted that Atheist organizations, like the AAI, should focus their attention on women particularly. He argued that "I believe that in the end, it will be women who will turn this around." This is a mighty big task for women to take on, but I completely agree with Chapman. Women need to come together and realize how much religion represses and harms others. I personally think that all feminists should be atheists because of the harmful effects of religion. Feminists, for the most part, believe that repressive institutions should be eliminated. Since religion, and particularly Christianity, attempts to convince women that they are supplementary beings created for man, religious/supernatural beliefs should be rejected. I would like to encourage all women and men reading this to examine how religion serves to keep women in submissive positions within society.
I just don't see the logic in saying that anyone who has been harmed by a patriarchal institution should not be part of it or believe in its core worldview. If you're going to be an atheist, why not constructing a good argument for being so that involves the question of theodicy and God's (lack of) ability to make good on his agreements with people.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, to say that Christianity tries to convince women that they are supplementary beings, created for men, is simply not true. Some Christians think this, but it's certainly not the central thrust of the New Testament. In fact, your post is ignorant of much redemptive interpretation of the New Testament which recognizes the absolutely central role women play in the redemption of humankind.
A great example is Jesus' conversation with the Syrophoenician woman. Jesus pompously condescends to her. He calls her a dog because she is a woman and a gentile, and he implies that the message of salvation is only for the Jews. The woman replies, "sir, even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall under the table" (i.e. she overpowers and hijacks his metaphor to make Jesus realize that faith in the Kingdom of God transcends ethnic or gender barriers. Jesus is stunned and replies by granting the woman's request for him to heal her daughter: "For saying that you may go--the demon has left."
This is just one example in the Gospels that shows how women have a unique ability to understand, comprehend, and further the message of God's Kingdom. The New Testament is filled with other moments of radical egalitarianism along these lines.
So if you're going to suggest that all women should be atheists, try to separate that claim from whatever negative reactions you've had with organized patriarchal faith. Women for thousand of years have felt God's presence in the earth.
You as a graduate student and someone who loves research should take initiative and explore ways that feminists have dealt with derisive and difficult texts and faith traditions. Being an atheist is, as you present it, a cop out.
I consider myself both a feminist and an atheists (one of the reasons I found your blog)--but isn't it too limiting to not grant women a belief in god? I know that's not something you're arguing specifically--but it appears Chapmen is (and you're agreeing with him). Shouldn't feminism be about more choices instead of less choices? This reminds me of "feminists" who are against things like cooking, child rearing, high heels, hetero marriage, and knitting because they view these as manacles of a by-gone, suppressed generation, and something an enlightened woman could never actually enjoy (which, of course, is crap). The logic set out by Chapmen, if followed to its conclusion, is pretty damning, and might actually set back feminists.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible was written by and for men, like most biblical texts. Christianity reinforces patriarchy. God, as a male figure (he created Adam first and in his image) in which we are suppose to look up to for salvation and redemption rather than through our own works, which is problematic. This allows Christians to cop out. They are forgiven for their sins by this simple humbling gesture, but then why do Christians always seem to fail to live up to the principles they claim to believe in? Many believe we only receive God's grace once we accept Jesus as our savior--men and women have to submit to him or they are eternally damned. Feminism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Feminism and Christianity are contradictory dogmas.
ReplyDeleteI like how your example of radical egalitarianism in the Bible is one in which Jesus calls a woman a dog. That's great.
ReplyDeleteHow about these:
"Man born of woman. Who can bring what is pure from the impure? No one!" Job 14:1-4
"Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings." Proverbs 31:3
"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." Ephesians 5:22 -24
"For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake." I Corinthians 11:8-9
"Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives" I Peter 3:1
"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." I Timothy 2:11
Hmm, from these examples, it does seem that the Bible (the central source of Christianity) is stating pretty plainly that women are supplementary beings created for men. I'm not sure how you can argue that this is simply not true. Many of these examples came straight from the New Testament and, believe me, there are plenty more.