Richard Dawkins isn't so bright any more

At The Guardian, Adam Lee writes about the current shitstorm that Richard Dawkins has stirred up.

(excerpt)

The atheist movement – a loosely-knit community of conference-goers, advocacy organizations, writers and activists – has been wracked by infighting the last few years over its persistent gender imbalance and the causes of it. Many female atheists have explained that they don’t get more involved because of the casual sexism endemic to the movement: parts of it see nothing problematic about hosting conferences with all-male speakers or having all-male leadership – and that’s before you get to the vitriolic and dangerous sexual harassment, online and off, that’s designed to intimidate women into silence.

Richard Dawkins has involved himself in some of these controversies, and rarely for the better  – as with his infamous “Dear Muslima”  letter in 2011, in which he essentially argued that, because women in Muslim countries suffer more from sexist mistreatment, women in the west shouldn’t speak up about sexual harassment or physical intimidation. There was also his sneer at women who advocate anti-sexual harassment policies .

But over the last few months, Dawkins showed signs of détente with his feminist critics – even progress. He signed a joint letter with the writer Ophelia Benson, denouncing and rejecting harassment ; he even apologized for the “Dear Muslima” letter . On stage at a conference in Oxford in August, Dawkins claimed to be a feminist  and said that everyone else should be, too.

Then another prominent male atheist, Sam Harris, crammed his foot in his mouth and said that atheist activism lacks an “estrogen vibe” and was “to some degree intrinsically male” . And, just like that, the brief Dawkins Spring was over.

On Twitter these last few days, Dawkins has reverted to his old, sexist ways and then some. He’s been very busy snarling about how feminists are shrill harridans who just want an excuse to take offense, and how Harris’s critics (and his own) are not unlike thought police witch-hunter lynch mobs . Dawkins claimed that his critics are engaged in “clickbait for profit” , that they “fake outrage” , and that he wished there were some way to penalize them.

For good measure, Dawkins argued that rape victims shouldn’t be considered trustworthy if they were drinking .

Benson, with whom Dawkins had signed the anti-harassment letter just weeks earlier, was not impressed. “I’m surprised and, frankly, shocked by Richard’s belligerent remarks about feminist bloggers over the past couple of days,” she told me. “Part of what made The God Delusion so popular was, surely, its indignant bluntness about religion. It was a best-seller; does that mean he ‘faked’ his outrage?”

There’s no denying that Dawkins played a formative role in the atheist movement, but it’s grown beyond just him. Remarks like these make him a liability at best, a punchline at worst. He may have convinced himself that he’s the Most Rational Man Alive, but if his goal is to persuade everyone else that atheism is a welcoming and attractive option, Richard Dawkins is doing a terrible job. Blogger and author Greta Christina  told me, “I can’t tell you how many women, people of color, other marginalized people I’ve talked with who’ve told me, ‘I’m an atheist, but I don’t want anything to do with organized atheism if these guys are the leaders.’”

It’s not just women who are outraged by Dawkins these days: author and blogger PZ Myers  told me, “At a time when our movement needs to expand its reach, it’s a tragedy that our most eminent spokesman has so enthusiastically expressed such a regressive attitude.”

What’s so frustrating, from the standpoint of the large and growing non-religious demographic , is that Dawkins is failing badly to live up to his own standards. As both an atheist and a scientist, he should be the first to defend the principle that no one is above criticism, and that any idea can be challenged, especially an idea in accord with popular prejudices. Instead, with no discernible sense of irony, Dawkins is publicly recycling the bad arguments so often used against him as an atheist: accusing his critics of being “outrage junkies” who are only picking fights for the sake of notoriety; roaring about “thought police” as though it were a bad thing to argue that someone is mistaken and attempt to change their mind; scoffing that they’re “looking for excuses to be angry” as though the tone of the argument, rather than its factual merits, were the most important thing; encouraging those who are targets of criticism to ignore it rather than respond.

It’s incredibly unfortunate to watch Dawkins walk down this path. Despite his claims, he is arguing in favor of maintaining the status quo. He doesn’t actively champion efforts to fight against sexism and sexual harassment in the atheist community (or in the wider culture). In fact, his words help provide support for such actions. Sam Harris is no better. Christopher Hitchens was no better. For all that these Horsemen proclaim to be ‘bright’ shining beacons of rationality and logic, on the subject of social justice issues, especially women’s rights, they are the Religious Right of the Atheist Movement. It’s time for them to shut up and move out of the limelight.

Richard Dawkins isn't so bright any more
{advertisement}

Disown Dawkins? Sounds good to me!

Via Vice, an article by Allegra Ringo which offers some advice to the Atheist Movement:

A woman was alleging that a man raped her when she was too drunk to give consent, and Dawkins’s immediate response was the mainstay of all conservatives: What if she’s lying? Plenty of Dawkins’s Twitter followers agreed with him. It’s her word against his, they cried. Rape accusations are serious business, they cried.

Yes, rape accusations are serious business. Actually, accusing anyone of a crime, especially a violent crime, is serious business. That’s why we have court systems in place that determine, to the best of their abilities, whether a given accusation is most likely true or false. We have this for virtually every crime. So why are Dawkins and his ilk so preoccupied about false accusations of rape in a world full of false accusations?

The “accuser-might-be-lying” theory inevitably pops up around every rape case. But false accusations of rape occur in only about 2 to 3 percent of cases. That’s roughly the same rate as false accusations of other violent crimes, according to the US Justice Department. Studies in the UK have yielded similar results, but the myth of the always-lying rape accuser persists.

Keir Starmer, England’s Director of Public Prosecutions, stated that rape investigations are “undermined by [the] belief that false accusations are rife.” Dawkins obviously fancies himself the king of reason, yet he buys wholesale into this frat-boy mentality. It’s reasonable to assume an accused person is innocent until proven guilty, but Dawkins is cherry-picking rape cases as the only focus of his doubt.

In a world where women are raped in huge numbers, all the fucking time, and where the rate of false rape accusations are comparatively low, it makes far more sense to believe the victims of rape.  If and when a would-be rapist makes it to trial (and we know that doesn’t happen very often), if they are judged not guilty based on the evidence presented, then people can readjust their opinions. But far too many people inflate the rate of false rape accusations. Dawkins is among those people (he, and other Rape Culture deniers ought to read this article).

Dawkins appears to have adopted the sexism and other forms of narrow-mindeness he purports to hate in religion (plus bonus defenses of pedophilia), proving his own mantras wrong with every new opinion he posts. Read Dawkins’s Twitter at any time for tweets about “objective reality” interspersed with paranoid tweets about Islam, and of course his regularly scheduled uninformed opinions on rape culture. Although he is gradually losing sympathizers, the so-called “new atheist” movement still holds him in too heroic a light. In his time, Dawkins didgroundbreaking work in the field of biology, but his relevance—especially in social matters—is fading quickly. If the new atheist movement wants to move beyond outdated idols preaching old-fashioned discrimination, they need to disown Dawkins—or, at the very least, subtract themselves from his more than 1 million Twitter followers.

Disowning Dawkins is not a problem for me. He had no role in my decision to become an atheist (nor did any of the Four Horsemen; I came into atheism because I took college courses on philosophy and logic in the 90s).  Hell, the only book I’ve read by any of the big name atheists was Dawkins’ The God Delusion and I just finished reading that last month.  I know that many people appreciate Dawkins’ candid words on religion. I think it is nice to see a public figure speak bluntly, without respect for religion.  We need more people like that. Religion is not the force for good in the world that many think it is, and far too many people accord religion and religious beliefs undeserved respect.

That said, Dawkins’ comments about Muslims, his ongoing sexist comments, his dismissal of the severity of child abuse compared to religious indoctrination, and his spreading of Rape Culture myths have resulted in my losing any respect I had for him.  This is compounded by the fact that he’s listening only to his supporters, many of whom are anti-feminists, so-called skeptics (more accurately hyper- or pseudo- skeptics, who demand absurd levels of evidence for ubiquitous crimes like rape; as if rape accusations require the same level of evidence they demand of godbotters), or Islamophobic bigots (like his buddy Sam Harris).  He’s paying little attention to the criticisms of others.  He’s locked himself in his ivory tower and refused to listen to the “little people”.  He refuses to acknowledge his privilege and address his biases and prejudices in an honest way. Hell, with regard to the bigotry he’s displayed, he doesn’t seem to even accept that he has biases and prejudices.

I’m not on Twitter.  I don’t read his blog.  Nor will I. I want nothing to do with Dawkins because of his horrible behavior (which I will still call out as I find out about it, bc it is harmful).  For this atheist, Dawkins has been disowned.  Would that more people would do so.

Disown Dawkins? Sounds good to me!

Richard Dawkins-Here's a clue about 'witch hunts'

Rebecca Watson has the floor:

Dear Muslima Innocent People Murdered in Witch Hunts

Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade were driven from your home in the dead of night by murderers, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car live, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative or you’ll be murdered, and your husband is allowed to beat you tried to murder you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery are seen anywhere near your home again. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters atheist polemicists have to put up with.

Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick” himself a “Horseman of the Apocalypse”, and do you know what happened to herhim? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee People on the Internet took issue with something he said on stage. I am not exaggerating. He They really did. They even laughed at his word choice. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, he was able to reply, and no one censored him or tried to murder him, but even so . . .

And you, Muslima innocent people who were murdered in witch hunts, think you have misogyny witch hunts to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.

Richard

Richard Dawkins-Here's a clue about 'witch hunts'

Richard Dawkins-Here’s a clue about ‘witch hunts’

Rebecca Watson has the floor:

Dear Muslima Innocent People Murdered in Witch Hunts

Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade were driven from your home in the dead of night by murderers, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car live, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative or you’ll be murdered, and your husband is allowed to beat you tried to murder you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery are seen anywhere near your home again. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters atheist polemicists have to put up with.

Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick” himself a “Horseman of the Apocalypse”, and do you know what happened to herhim? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee People on the Internet took issue with something he said on stage. I am not exaggerating. He They really did. They even laughed at his word choice. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, he was able to reply, and no one censored him or tried to murder him, but even so . . .

And you, Muslima innocent people who were murdered in witch hunts, think you have misogyny witch hunts to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.

Richard

Richard Dawkins-Here’s a clue about ‘witch hunts’

Dawkins continues to descend

Richard Dawkins continues his descent into the Pit:

I have elaborated elsewhere on my problems with Sam Harris’ comments. Suffice to say, he has some horrible gender essentialist ideas he needs to confront, and hopefully, reject (you can read my comments on Harris’ sexism here and here). I do want to discuss the thought police comment.

The critics of Harris, Dawkins, Shermer, Thunderf00t, the anti-feminists, the pro-harassment crowd, etc are not engaged in uncovering and punishing thoughtcrime or thought-criminals.

The Thought Police (thinkpol in Newspeak) are the secret police of Oceania in George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.

It is the job of the Thought Police to uncover and punish thoughtcrime and thought-criminals. They use psychology and omnipresent surveillance (such as telescreens) to search, find, monitor and arrest members of society who could potentially challenge authority and status quo, even only by thought, hence the name Thought Police.  They use terror and torture to achieve their ends.

What those critics are doing…what we are doing, is calling out bad behavior and criticizing it.  If we see instances of sexism or misogyny, we’re criticizing it. If we see people being homophobic, we criticize it. If we see people being transphobic, we criticize it.  That’s it.  None of us is in any position of power over them.  We are not monitoring their every move.  When we criticize them, it’s bc they’ve spoken out in public and it’s been brought to our attention.  With the exception of rapists like Michael Shermer, we are not advocating for these people to be thrown in jail for their opinions.  We don’t have the power to see that happen even if that’s what we wanted.

Moreover, the label of ‘thought police’ is deeply ironic.  Which group is engaged in harassment and bullying?  Which group wants to maintain the status quo, and see no changes made?  Which group whined about harassment policies-policies intended to act as guidelines for proper behavior and help provide a safe environment at conventions? Which group whines and complains when their heroes-Shermer, Dawkins, or Harris-are criticized for their sexist beliefs? The people doing all that crap are on the other side of the Great Rifts.  Some of them are Pitters.  Some are followers of Dawkins, Shermer, and Harris (note, not all people in either camp are engage in such bad behavior).  They are the ones engaged in the type of behavior that thought police engage in.  These fuckers are projecting.

Among their many problems is that they don’t like being criticized. They don’t like having their beliefs and opinions challenged.  They think they should be able to say what they want, when they want, and not be called out for it.  They don’t want to be held responsible for their words.  They think free speech is absolute, and that there should be no repercussions-such as criticism-for what they say.  I hate to tell them (not really), but that’s not how free speech works.  You can call someone a ‘cunt’, and we can, in turn call you a nincomfuck, or a raging shitstain (note that on this side of the Great Rifts, the use of gendered, homophobic, racist, or ableist slurs is condemned).  Our actions are not those of any “thought police”.  We don’t seek to criminalize the use of gendered insults.  What we’d like is for these people to see the harm done in using gendered slurs and choose not to use them.  I don’t call someone a ‘cunt’ for the same reason I wouldn’t want someone to call me a ‘faggot’ or a ‘nigger’.  I wouldn’t advocate criminalizing people who use that language, but I fully support publicly criticizing people who use such words, and harshly.  If people want to shame the hell out of bigots, that’s great. But that’s as far as it goes.  None of us is acting anything like the thought police and once again Dawkins shows off what an asshole he is.

Dawkins continues to descend

I'm glad I never had atheist heroes

If I had, and they went by the name of Richard Dawkins or Michael Shermer, I’d be deeply disgusted with them.  Oh, wait, there’s another name to add to that:  Sam Harris.

I also asked Harris at the event why the vast majority of atheists — and many of those who buy his books — are male, a topic which has prompted some to raise questions of sexism in the atheist community. Harris’ answer was both silly and then provocative.

It can only be attributed to my “overwhelming lack of sex appeal,” he said to huge laughter.

“I think it may have to do with my person slant as an author, being very critical of bad ideas. This can sound very angry to people..People just don’t like to have their ideas criticized. There’s something about that critical posture that is to some degree instrinsically male and more attractive to guys than to women,” he said. “The atheist variable just has this – it doesn’t obviously have this nurturing, coherence-building extra estrogen vibe that you would want by default if you wanted to attract as many women as men.”

Atheism-it’s more of a guy thing (reminds me of Shermer’s comments a while back).  No Sam Harris, atheism isn’t a guy thing. It isn’t a masculine thing.  Having a “critical posture”-whatever the fuck that is-isn’t something intrinsic to men that women lack.  Hell, critical posture-or what he more than likely means, critical thinking– in general is something everyone has to work at. I’d hardly say it’s intrinsic to anyone.  It’s a tool that has to be learned and honed.  Atheism, like “critical posture”, doesn’t have a testosterone vibe, as you seem to think it does and it’s both insulting and deeply sexist to claim otherwise.  What about all the women out there who are atheists and are good at critical thinking?  Do they count for nothing?  Are they of no value to you?  If they are atheists-and generally I take women at their word when they self-identify-what does that say about your belief that atheism is more attractive to men?

But wait, there’s more:  Harris is a believer in gender essentialist bullshit.  Women aren’t inherently nurturing. They’re reared in a society that pushes that as a virtue for them.  Moreover, men can be and often are, nurturing as well.  Men and women are not as different as Harris seems to think:

Physical strength between men and women using data from the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s long jump, high jump, and javelin throw competitions shows distinct differences between the sexes. Assertiveness as based on self-reported measures of competitiveness, decisiveness, sense of superiority, persistence, confidence, and the ability to stand up under pressure does not show the same gender gap.

For 122 different characteristics, from empathy to sexuality to science inclination to extroversion, a statistical analysis of 13,301 individuals did not reveal any distinct differences between men and women.

Gender can be a predictor for stereotypic activities like scrapbooking or boxing, but men and women don’t think about their relationships in “qualitatively different” ways, no matter what self-help books like Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus may claim.

While there are average differences between the sexes, they aren’t consistent enough to accurately characterize the entire group. Just because a man or woman fits into one stereotype for their gender doesn’t mean they will fit into another.

“The possession of traits associated with gender is not as simple as ‘this or that'” the authors write.

I’d also criticize the writer of this piece, Michelle Boorstein, for asking the question in the first place. Perhaps the public face of the atheist movement is largely male, but atheists in general?  Does Boorstein have evidence of that, or was she making an assumption?  I suspect the latter.  If so, you know what assuming does…

****

Update:

It seems I was right to question whether or not the vast majority of atheists are men.  It turns out they’re not.  Over at Greta Christina’s blog, she reveals some interesting information:

According to the WIN-Gallup International “Global Index of Religiosity and Atheism 2012,” August 6, 2012 (PDF, Table 8, page 20 of 25), when asked, “Irrespective of whether you attend a place of worship or not, would you say you are a religious person, not a religious person or a convinced atheist?”, 60% of men and 57% of women said “A religious person.” 23% of men and 23% of women said, “Not a religious person.” 12% of men and 14% of women said “A convinced atheist.” (“Don’t know/no response” got 5% from men and 6% from women.)

I'm glad I never had atheist heroes

I’m glad I never had atheist heroes

If I had, and they went by the name of Richard Dawkins or Michael Shermer, I’d be deeply disgusted with them.  Oh, wait, there’s another name to add to that:  Sam Harris.

I also asked Harris at the event why the vast majority of atheists — and many of those who buy his books — are male, a topic which has prompted some to raise questions of sexism in the atheist community. Harris’ answer was both silly and then provocative.

It can only be attributed to my “overwhelming lack of sex appeal,” he said to huge laughter.

“I think it may have to do with my person slant as an author, being very critical of bad ideas. This can sound very angry to people..People just don’t like to have their ideas criticized. There’s something about that critical posture that is to some degree instrinsically male and more attractive to guys than to women,” he said. “The atheist variable just has this – it doesn’t obviously have this nurturing, coherence-building extra estrogen vibe that you would want by default if you wanted to attract as many women as men.”

Atheism-it’s more of a guy thing (reminds me of Shermer’s comments a while back).  No Sam Harris, atheism isn’t a guy thing. It isn’t a masculine thing.  Having a “critical posture”-whatever the fuck that is-isn’t something intrinsic to men that women lack.  Hell, critical posture-or what he more than likely means, critical thinking– in general is something everyone has to work at. I’d hardly say it’s intrinsic to anyone.  It’s a tool that has to be learned and honed.  Atheism, like “critical posture”, doesn’t have a testosterone vibe, as you seem to think it does and it’s both insulting and deeply sexist to claim otherwise.  What about all the women out there who are atheists and are good at critical thinking?  Do they count for nothing?  Are they of no value to you?  If they are atheists-and generally I take women at their word when they self-identify-what does that say about your belief that atheism is more attractive to men?

But wait, there’s more:  Harris is a believer in gender essentialist bullshit.  Women aren’t inherently nurturing. They’re reared in a society that pushes that as a virtue for them.  Moreover, men can be and often are, nurturing as well.  Men and women are not as different as Harris seems to think:

Physical strength between men and women using data from the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s long jump, high jump, and javelin throw competitions shows distinct differences between the sexes. Assertiveness as based on self-reported measures of competitiveness, decisiveness, sense of superiority, persistence, confidence, and the ability to stand up under pressure does not show the same gender gap.

For 122 different characteristics, from empathy to sexuality to science inclination to extroversion, a statistical analysis of 13,301 individuals did not reveal any distinct differences between men and women.

Gender can be a predictor for stereotypic activities like scrapbooking or boxing, but men and women don’t think about their relationships in “qualitatively different” ways, no matter what self-help books like Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus may claim.

While there are average differences between the sexes, they aren’t consistent enough to accurately characterize the entire group. Just because a man or woman fits into one stereotype for their gender doesn’t mean they will fit into another.

“The possession of traits associated with gender is not as simple as ‘this or that'” the authors write.

I’d also criticize the writer of this piece, Michelle Boorstein, for asking the question in the first place. Perhaps the public face of the atheist movement is largely male, but atheists in general?  Does Boorstein have evidence of that, or was she making an assumption?  I suspect the latter.  If so, you know what assuming does…

****

Update:

It seems I was right to question whether or not the vast majority of atheists are men.  It turns out they’re not.  Over at Greta Christina’s blog, she reveals some interesting information:

According to the WIN-Gallup International “Global Index of Religiosity and Atheism 2012,” August 6, 2012 (PDF, Table 8, page 20 of 25), when asked, “Irrespective of whether you attend a place of worship or not, would you say you are a religious person, not a religious person or a convinced atheist?”, 60% of men and 57% of women said “A religious person.” 23% of men and 23% of women said, “Not a religious person.” 12% of men and 14% of women said “A convinced atheist.” (“Don’t know/no response” got 5% from men and 6% from women.)

I’m glad I never had atheist heroes

That's it. I'm done with Dawkins.

https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/510333269649653760

He doesn’t understand a damn thing about Rape Culture.  He also doesn’t understand what rape even IS.  He’s been told over and over again to listen to what people are telling him. He’s been told that he’s privilege blind. He’s been told that he takes to social media and expresses himself inelegantly at best, and offensive at worst.  He continues to pay no heed to the people explaining to him how he’s wrong.  I’m done with him. I want no part of anything to do with him.  I really want to burn my copy of the God Delusion.

Fuck you Richard Dawkins. To infinity and beyond.

****

Update:  Apparently Dawkins has deleted his Tweet.  I guess he’s trying to cover his tracks. Or perhaps he listened to someone and realized how harmful his Tweet was…naaah.

That's it. I'm done with Dawkins.

That’s it. I’m done with Dawkins.

https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/510333269649653760

He doesn’t understand a damn thing about Rape Culture.  He also doesn’t understand what rape even IS.  He’s been told over and over again to listen to what people are telling him. He’s been told that he’s privilege blind. He’s been told that he takes to social media and expresses himself inelegantly at best, and offensive at worst.  He continues to pay no heed to the people explaining to him how he’s wrong.  I’m done with him. I want no part of anything to do with him.  I really want to burn my copy of the God Delusion.

Fuck you Richard Dawkins. To infinity and beyond.

****

Update:  Apparently Dawkins has deleted his Tweet.  I guess he’s trying to cover his tracks. Or perhaps he listened to someone and realized how harmful his Tweet was…naaah.

That’s it. I’m done with Dawkins.