So Katha’s article is online now, so I can point to it. She talked to me when she was working on it.
Here’s a great way to make a movement: have your most famous and powerful public figures obsess over Henry Higgins’s famous question, “Why can’t a woman be more like a man?” Why aren’t they more into critical thinking, argument, logic? more rational? Why do they accuse a man of sexual harassment when he’s just trying to chat them up in an elevator at 4 in the morning? Why do they get drunk and then accuse men of rape? Then, having alienated a huge number of actual and potential members, to whom you sound arrogant, vain, sexist and clueless, look around and wonder, Gee, where are the women? They must be even less rational than we thought!
Well quite. People can bluster and fume all they like, but that is what has been happening. It’s no good pretending that Dawkins has not alienated a huge number of women and feminist men (among others).
At the grassroots level, women who speak up against harassment or sexism in the movement have been the target of disgusting attacks online, the sort of vicious obscenity and violent threats notoriously visited upon Anita Sarkeesian and other women in the gaming and tech worlds. If a recipient becomes angry or upset, that just proves she was weak and crazy to begin with. Let me tell you, I’ve seen a tiny sample of the missives directed at Melody Hensley, executive director of the Center for Inquiry–DC, and I can see why she suffers from PTSD. “I receive harassment all day long every day on social media. I also receive threats daily. I have had dozens of videos made about me, harassing me,” she says. “Everything I write online is compiled by my harassers. Even though I know the Internet is public, it’s eerie being watched every moment. I have had people call my home and tell me that they were going to kill me.”
Again – it’s no good pretending all that is just make-believe.
I don’t think it’s healthy for the secular movements to be so focused on a handful of male stars, but here is where some firm leadership might be useful. Instead, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris talk as if their obnoxious fanboys were all that stood between the values of the Enlightenment and the barbarous darkness of feminist fascism. And they’re happy to make common cause against feminists with whoever’s available. As Dawkins tweeted on September 7, “The ‘Big Sister is Watching You’ Thought Police hate @CHSommers’ Factual Feminism, and you can see why.” That’s the same Christina Hoff Sommers who has a mutual admiration society with noted Enlightenment philosopher Rush Limbaugh. If she’s spoken up against the misogyny and willful ignorance of the Christian right, I’ve missed it.
Then she moves on to the joint statement and its almost immediate aftermath, and Sam Harris’s “it’s more of a guy thing” moment. Then she says that at this rate she’d rather be a Catholic than be part of the atheist movement.
Unfortunately many of Dawkins’ fanbois and allies see this as a feature, not a bug. Michael Nugent thinks it’s the feminists’ fault that Dawkins keeps spouting sexist inanity.
My only argument against this is that the Catholic hierarchy is actively misogynist.
I am certainly never going to identify myself as part of a “movement” In fact, at this point, I’m approaching things as that the “atheist movement” does not exist. It nearly coalesced into a movement, but lacking political clout (probably a good thing) because it didn’t stand for anything, it’s become more of a “trend.”
That was the debate around A+: does atheism stand for anything or is it just standing for opposition to faith? Some tried to add +social justice and others added +harassment and +misogyny and, well, that sort of killed the debate and I doubt a movement will ever form. I certainly wouldn’t be part of a movement that has Harris and Dawkins and Nugent and Thunderf00t and whatnot in it. Ugh.
Cue Dawkins Tweet … “Isn’t is obvious she’s Lying?” Have to agree with Marcus above. But I’m taking a break from the entire enchilada of atheism/skepticism, including FTB. I’ll return later, I’m sure, but I need a break. I feel like everyone wants their own sandbox and wants their own applause, and I’m just not interested. These comment sections are filled with little egoistic hierarchies of folks who seem to want to have semantic/terminology/logic pissing contests rather than find common ground and build … anything. Community, good will … name it. It’s not inclusive. It’s not communicative. It’s another little sandbox for people to try to dominate. It’s just sad.
Here’s what people don’t understand about “movements”
I was an atheist since age 12, a feminist since about the same age, an anti-war and anti-racist activist after that, a reproductive rights activist, a sustainability activist etc…
I am not going to stop being any of these things… being of these movement means I bring them with me where ever I go.
So there’s no “atheist” movement that doesn’t have feminists inside and out critiquing it… as with every other movement or space (ie tech, games, etc).
People have a tendency to compartmentalize but that’s not how the world works.
No one is “leaving”…. I am always going to be “an atheist” and “a feminist” and an “anti-racist”…. and I bring all of that with me where ever I go.
If you think you can box off the precious atheist movement from things you don’t like on the “outside” … You’re kidding yourself.
Katha was so smart funny at WiS 2 that I immediately bought one of her books and have been reading it on and off. Even though it’s made from columns she wrote in the 90s, it’s disturbingly relevant today, for the most part. I really admire her intelligence and sharp wit. I know it’s not the main point of her article or yours, but the line quoted above made me laugh out loud.
Unfortunately, given the subject matter, we’d probably have to cry if we weren’t laughing.
Al Dente @1: “My only argument against this is that the Catholic hierarchy is actively misogynist.”
Really, the brand atheists are too. Instead of “actively” or even “openly,” I’d have said “verbally.” Because the only difference is that the atheists are claiming to believe in equality where the catholics aren’t, and a few points of policy. Past that, they sound pretty samey to me. Biotruths and blind patriarchy are spittin’ distance from holy writ, original sin, willful patriarchy etc.
–
@1
Looking at some of the sarcasm of the piece (e.g, describing Rush Limbaugh as a “noted Enlightenment philosopher,” my suspicion is she’s implying that atheism is worse than the Catholic church.