Relentless Ruffians, Fell Attorneys, And . . .

Reading Susan Jacoby’s long grumble about the dearth of women in the “secularist movement” (why does it have to be a movement?) my eye was caught by this:

Atheists to this day are constantly accused of being shrill, but in a sexist atmosphere shrill seems shriller when it’s a woman who is speaking.  As a Massachusetts newspaper wrote in the 1850s of Ernestine Rose, an immigrant from Poland who is another overlooked female figure in the history of American atheism, “We know of no object more deserving of contempt, loathing, and abhorrence than a female atheist. We hold the vilest strumpet from the stews to be by comparison respectable.”

Dr. Johnson got there first, in his description of 1730s London:

Here malice, rapine, accident, conspire,
And now a rabble rages, now a fire;
Their ambush here relentless ruffians lay,
And here the fell attorney prowls for prey;
Here falling houses thunder on your head,
And here a female atheist talks you dead.

Johnson’s imitations of Juvenal are well worth the trouble.  Here (and here, and here) is another one.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Relentless Ruffians, Fell Attorneys, And . . .

  1. WmarkW says:

    Until this year, Jacoby had a regular column at the Washington Post’s On Faith site. I used to post comments under it, quoting the contributors here.

    I suspect the dearth of women as active secularists comes from women’s: a) greater desire for social cohesion; b) lesser distinction between the intuitive and scientific; c) lower scientific literacy.

    C) is readily observable in the patronage of palm readers and astrology books. We see A) in churches everywhere, most obviously Catholic ones, among those who don’t treat doctrines seriously.

    B) also shows up in that women are dominant in fields that cross science with verbalism, like nursing and psychotherapy. Has Mr. Kahn/Hume ever written about the effect of women having more neuro-transmitters between their brain hemispheres, so they don’t distinguish as strictly the objective and subjective? They make good writers and teachers, but not as good mathematicians, computer programmers or pilots.

Comments are closed.