Feminist Women’s Attitudes towards Feminist Men in the Canadian Atheist Movement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Scholars of nonreligion and atheism have become increasingly interested in how the atheist movement reproduces gender inequalities. This growing research area is especially concerned with atheist activism’s contradictory embracing of gender egalitarianism on the one hand (especially when embedded in a critique of religion) and the exclusion of women from atheist spaces. Limited information is available on male atheists who identify as feminist or who express agreement with feminist goals. Although some scholars have addressed the rejection of feminist claims within organised nonreligion, this article examines both men’s adoption of the feminist label and women’s attitudes towards feminist men in the atheist movement. Drawing from thirty-five semi-structured interviews with atheist activists in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, I show that some feminist women perceived feminist men as passive or guided by insincere motivations (primarily to earn the attention and approval of women within atheist organisations). These findings shed light on the dilemmas of feminist men in atheist activism and contribute to understanding the gender dynamics of some atheist organisations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".