Here’s the thing: females aren’t a minority. Constant reminders consisting of everything from TV ads to misused pronouns don’t let us forget the struggle with basic civil and social rights that women have battled, past and present alike. Caught up in the urgent ideals of feminism and modern liberal values, it’s sometimes easy (even for women) to forget that females are half of the world’s population, especially when it comes to things like careers in math and science. A survey conducted by the Center for Inquiry shows that over 80% of atheists are male. What’s more, the same survey suggested that over 40% had at least a six-figure income.

It’s hardly a secret that there just tend to be more men in science. The times are a-changin’, but even so, let’s face it. The face of atheism is now, more than ever, a gray-haired sausage fest in a thousand dollar tux. This is one of the more unfortunate side effects of “new atheism” brought up by the (otherwise exceptional) lead of Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris: the “big three” of non-belief nowadays. (Ironically, I’m pretty sure Dawkins would have been Woodrow Wilson.) Personally, I’m not a complainer. Somebody needed to resurrect (excuse the poor choice of words) atheism, and that’s just what happens when the only people bold enough to do it happen mostly to be our male, bordering-on-senior-citizen counterparts. We’ll just have to problem solve, and put our noggins to use, as atheists and members of society.

Well, by now, we pretty much know that an atheist woman is kind of like your token gay uncle.

So now what?

Mass cultural change was never easy, especially since the problem lies beyond atheism itself. Obviously, much of it has to do with how women fit in with science. While valid, that point has been brought up enough times that if I had a dollar every time I heard it, by now I would have been able to afford a tux, a sex reassignment surgery, and a serious box of hair bleach instead of spending my time actually working on the issue.

As it is, no one gives out grants for counting the repetition of an argument.

Maybe instead of trying to draw in more women first, we should focus on encouraging the atheist females we already have. As Islam shows us, it’s better to have people following big rather than a big following. (It also shows us that having both isn’t half bad, either.) What I’m saying is that if you’re female… what are you doing reading my thoughts about feminism? Go start your own blog, and put yourself out there.

Next to religion, it’s no surprise that we’ve been losing the women. After all, they have things like the Virgin Mary, nuns, and Rebecca St. James. What can I say, they’ve one-up’d us in that respect.

We have no official organization, no official leaders, no Avril Lavigne wannabes to proselytize for us… in fact, we’re only left with one single thing which we all happen not to believe. It’s only to be expected that its public image would go uncontrolled. So who should control it?

Well, you already do. One of the nice things about atheism is that it’s sort of an anarchy in itself, but it’s also a democracy by default, because only the atheist public can really decide their own image. For example, with The God Delusion, Dawkins certainly decided what his was, and everyone else just kind of picked it up and followed his lead.

Which brings me to my point: it’s important over time that atheism gains some more female poster-children. Women otherwise attracted to religion should be shown that atheism is not a patriarchy (like religion is).

And getting those reps is not the onus of some pie-in-the-sky organization that controls atheism behind the scenes. We don’t have an atheist Vatican. It’s up to you to decide the image you put out of your own brand of atheism. We just have to remember to include women in the same outreach.

Cheers