In Richard Dawkins’s recent editing of an anthology of modern science writing, a female scientist notices something:
Got myself an early yule present today; “The Oxford book of modern science writing” . . . Of 83 texts Professor D has selected 3 written by women. That’s about 3.6 %. How hard could it be to find a handful more? Like 10 %? It would still be a wiener fest.
This seems a rather timely question, as I also noticed another New Atheist, Daniel Dennett, getting a similar question—not with regards to science, but religion—and giving what seemed to me an old school chauvinist response (“biology is destiny”). Is it just me, or do you get the impression that Dennett senses his answer failing with the audience? Anyway, Dennett’s response is within the first two minutes of this clip:
While it might at first seem a bit odd to see Dawkins and Dennett coming up against some feminist resistance, in retrospect it makes sense: both men, being strict materialists, are going to have problems with contra-causal free will being more than an illusion, and so are going to accept certain human institutions as being, ultimately, “biology based” and “natural” (including the dominance of alpha males in the realms of science and religion).
A bit of Marina and the Diamonds seems apt here: