Guest post: Everybody Is. Even You, Sam Harris


Guest post by Lady Mondegreen (aka Stacy).

It’s happened again. Feminists of the atheoskeptisphere have pointed out that one of our Famous Men said something sexist; the assertion has been met with intense defensiveness and downright rage. The defensiveness is understandable, but the rage baffled me until I realized that it comes, at least in part, from a profound misconception about what sexism is and how it works.

To start with, here’s a statement from a comment by Folie Deuce, on Ophelia’s post #EstrogenVibe

If everyone is sexist than nobody is sexist.

No. Category error.

The wrongness there can be understood by substituting a few other words for the word “sexism”:

If everyone is affected by cognitive biases, then nobody is affected by cognitive biases.

See the problem? Everybody IS affected by cognitive biases. They’re implicit. Same with sexist biases, and racist biases, and other out-group biases. We all share them, to varying degrees–even those of us who belong to the groups in question. We’ve internalized them. If you react with outrage when you or one of your heroes is criticized for a cognitive bias lurking behind your/their thinking on a subject, you’re being defensive, not skeptical. Since none of us is ammune to implicit bias, you should at least consider the possibility that the critic is right. Most skeptics familiar with critical thinking (or its language, at least,) will grant that in the abstract, but many can’t acknowledge it when the subject is sexism.

They should.

Like cognitive biases, sexist and other out-group biases are implicit. Their content is dependent on culture and varies to some degree from place to place (I’ve read–I can’t vouch for the truth of this–that in Japan, the notion that women are less intelligent than men isn’t common. There are other stereotypes about women to be found there, but not that particular one,) but if you’ve grown up in a culture steeped in stereotypes and biases against Group X, you’ve internalized those stereotypes and biases. Yes, even you, Mr. Big Stuff. You’re not a brain in a vat. You grew up with the same implicit assumptions as everyone else in your society.

When Sam Harris insists “I’m not the sexist pig you’re looking for,” he’s assuming that “you said something sexist,” translates into/as “you think that men are better than women,” or even “you are a male supremacist.” But that’s not what “you said something sexist” means. That’s not what it means at all.

Does this seem obvious to you, reader? If you’re a regular reader of this blog, it probably does. But there are lots of people, some very smart ones among them, who haven’t thought this through.

Ian Cromwell, aka The Crommunist, has argued against using the word “racist” as a noun. We shouldn’t characterize anyone as “a racist,” he thinks, in part because of confusions like the one I’m discussing here. I wouldn’t go quite that far–I think it’s fair and useful to call a person who holds explicit white supremacist views a racist, and a person who thinks it a shame women ever won the right to vote, a sexist. Sam Harris, on the other hand, is correct that he’s not a “sexist pig.” He is, however, sexist–along with me, and you, and everyone else. How nice if he could acknowledge that fact, and turn his attention from defending himself to examining the content of actual claims made by and about women, even–dare we hope–the implicit ones.

Comments

  1. aziraphale says

    I think the feeling behind “If everyone is sexist then nobody is sexist” is “stop picking on me just because I’m sexist. I’m no worse than everyone else”. Which would be legitimate, unless you are putting your opinions in the public domain and thereby implying that they are worth listening to.

  2. R Johnston says

    If Dawkins and Harris were at least a little bit more clever and intelligent about their fallacious reasoning then I might understand why some people still listen to them. But no. This is the quality of their work. The fallacy of their reasoning is so transparent that it can only be mocked, not disagreed with. They’re creationists now.

  3. rw2718 says

    The issue, as I see it, isn’t with calling everything sexist. It’s with the simplistic view that there’s no degree of differentiation between different degrees of sexism. So, when you say that someone who hits on a woman that doesn’t want to be hit on is sexist to the same degree as someone who performs genital mutilation, you lose me.

    This is what I think Dawkins is trying to say, often badly. Let’s put it a different way. -1 is negative. So is -1,000,000. But they’re not negative in the same degree.

    So the more accurate analogy is that some people have slight cognitive biases. Other people have enormous cognitive biases. But we lose something in our discourse if we can’t distinguish between the two situations.

  4. suttkus says

    I remember realizing that I was a racist. An encounter with a black pedestrian, while I was walking between my grandmother’s apartment and my home one night, drug up a log of fears, and, afterward, I realized they wouldn’t have been so high if he hadn’t been black.

    If you had asked me that morning, I would have denied it. I would have been insulted at the suggestion. I’d have probably snapped back at you indignantly. How DARE you accuse me of being a racist? I believe in equal rights! I believe in equal opportunity! I support the civil rights movement!

    But there it was. All those things I’d thought I’d grown past. The casual racism I internalized growing up in the south. The endless images of black thugs on television, the face of crime. It’s all still in there. These emotional connections don’t just go away when you decide that they’re wrong. The brain isn’t like a computer, where I can get rid of the crud by hitting delete. All that garbage is still in there, waiting to come out, influencing me in ways I undoubtedly still don’t realize.

    And it didn’t take much thought from that to conclude I was certainly still harboring sexist attitudes, as well as all the other “-ists” I had believed myself so far beyond.

    We don’t get to be paragons of our own imagined virtues. All we can strive for is to be better tomorrow than we are now. Always striving.

  5. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    I think the feeling behind “If everyone is sexist then nobody is sexist” is “stop picking on me just because I’m sexist. I’m no worse than everyone else”. Which would be legitimate, unless you are putting your opinions in the public domain and thereby implying that they are worth listening to.

    It reminds me of those bumper stickers you see some places in the US that go something like “We Honor All Students At Some School.” The objection to which is that, if everyone is worthy of honor then nobody is. So you know…give me a medal for refraining from sending rape threats.

  6. mildlymagnificent says

    Honestly? I’ve been involved in feminism and other activism since the 70s, and I occasionally catch myself out on some things. Not so much sexism or racism – more often class/education stuff, but sometimes basic unexamined sexist or racist shit from somewhere or other. I think it through when it happens. Generally I give up on trying to work out how and why it happened but I do resolve to do better from then on. Even then, I sometimes have to think and speak carefully to avoid repeating infelicitous expressions.

    I don’t recall seeing or hearing of Harris way back then or any time since in relation to feminism. Why he thinks he’s immune to something that even lifelong feminists have to deal with is beyond me. Just because he’s kidding himself doesn’t mean that the rest of us should pretend he’s somehow beyond and above ordinary human habits of thought and of unreflective non-thought.

  7. Johnny Vector says

    Yes! Ian’s preference for “racist action” over “racist person” (and the obvious extension to “sexist”) is one of my favorite approaches to discussions of this sort. I think it’s a hugely important change to our approach. More use of it, please!

  8. =8)-DX says

    @John Morales #10
    It would be, but if you admit to “I hate racist action x” and “I hate person y for doing action x”, you’re not being as dishonest as the sin-hating folks.

  9. says

    Frankly, at least around here, most people do focus on the behavior rather than the person in their criticisms. It’s just rarely what is heard by the person being criticized.

    What I think does happen a bit much around these parts is. “X did something sexist/racist. I never did like them.” It’s a more subtle form of essentializing the problem.

  10. MyaR says

    he’s somehow beyond and above ordinary human habits of thought and of unreflective non-though

    Well, that’s just obviously true — I mean he dropped out of Stanford to pursue enlightenment and spent years at it before returning and getting his degree, and now he’s written a book about it, so if we just sit at his feet and listen to his guruness, we too can learn to be completely free of all prejudices, and what’s more, learn how bell curves don’t work the way we think they do.

  11. Kevin Kehres says

    @7 mildlymagnificent

    Again, it’s called “being human”. Anyone who says they don’t have these responses is most likely either lying to themselves or lying to you.

    From what I understand, it works both ways — people of color have a visceral “othering” response to white folk. For example, my nephew was working in a restaurant where most of the cooks/chefs were Jamaican. And one of them declared of my nephew, “he’s a white boy, but he’s OK.” It’s like that everywhere.

  12. whywhywhy says

    It seems odd that Harris would use the phrase “I am not the sexist pig you’re looking for”. This can be interpreted as the fact that he admits he is a sexist pig but not worthy of notice or that he is not a sexist pig at all. From reading his response, it appears he means the latter but the phrase is great legalistic political phrase in the sense that he is not denying nor admitting to the charge (despite the fact no one was calling him a sexist pig). In other words, Bill Clinton would be proud of the phrase, “I am not the sexist pig you’re looking for”.

  13. Anthony K says

    Great piece, Lady Mondegreen!

    @13:

    What I think does happen a bit much around these parts is. “X did something sexist/racist. I never did like them.” It’s a more subtle form of essentializing the problem.

    I think I’m often guilty of that, Stephanie. Thanks for pointing that out. I’ll consider this and watch myself a little more carefully from now on.

  14. piero says

    This is a wonderful post. It really made me think about my own biases and prejudices, which are unfortunately quite a few. I remember, for example, being baffled by this story: “A boy and his father have a car crash. The father dies, and the boy is rushed to hospital. The surgeon at the emergency room looks at the boy and screams: ‘Oh, my God! He’s my son!” It took me quite a while to realize that the surgeon had to be the boy’s mother.

    I understand we are all prey to biases and prejudice, but I would distinguish between people who cling to them and people who want to get rid of them. So, am I sexist? Yes, but not in the same way Rush Limbaugh is.

  15. SF says

    Please explain to me the equivocation over what people say versus what they do. No matter what Dawkins or Harris have said, in personal life there is no record that I am aware of, of them actually personally harassing anyone or discriminating against anyone. In contrast some one like Shermer is a predator who doesn’t deserve to be in polite company much less running a major skeptical organization based on what any unbiased person should conclude based on the preponderance of evidence of what he has done. So I don’t understand the endless focus and analysis of Dawkins tweets about Shermer and other topics for example, rather than the direct actions of Shermer. Judge this both by the number of posts as well as comments made on these subjects. Are there not clear distinctions to be made?

  16. Anthony K says

    No matter what Dawkins or Harris have said, in personal life there is no record that I am aware of, of them actually personally harassing anyone or discriminating against anyone.

    Ignoring the strange distinction between harassment/discrimination and what Dawkins or Harris have said, there’s certainly the example of Richard Dawkins blacklisting Rebecca Watson from conferences.

    I think that’s the kind of thing Richard Dawkins says is ‘against free and open inquiry’ when it’s directed at him.

    As for Harris, his continual championing of fewer rights for Muslims (they should be profiled at airports, and should not be allowed to build their mosque anywhere near ground zero) certainly count, even if it’s simply what he says.

  17. SF says

    Anthony K that is weak. We all know RD and RW have both mutually pledged not to attend anything the other is participating, same as PZ and erv. So what, they can’t stand each other, it’s just human nature. Yes Harris has controversial views about Muslims, which I happen not to agree with, but it is easy to exaggerate them and take them out of context. He hasn’t actually directly discriminated against any Muslims in personal or professional relationships, or we would have heard about it.

    Let’s make it simple. If you had to attend a Cigar/Scotch bar alone as a women, with either Shermer or Dawkins present, which would you choose?

  18. xyz says

    SF: I would stay home and spare myself a choice between two unpleasant evenings. Which is actually a perfect metaphor for how many women and/or POC react to the atheist “movement”.

    You’re creating a false dichotomy here.

  19. Anthony K says

    Anthony K that is weak. We all know RD and RW have both mutually pledged not to attend anything the other is participating, same as PZ and erv. So what, they can’t stand each other, it’s just human nature.

    You asked, I gave you an example. Hey, there are a lot of people I can’t stand at work, but I still manage to work with them when necessary.

    Yes Harris has controversial views about Muslims, which I happen not to agree with, but it is easy to exaggerate them and take them out of context.

    Are you saying that I’ve exaggerated here? If not, what was the point of bringing up exaggeration?

    He hasn’t actually directly discriminated against any Muslims in personal or professional relationships, or we would have heard about it.

    Again, you have this weird dichotomy between what people say and what you consider ‘actual’ discrimination.

    And no, we would not necessarily have heard about it. James Randi and others knew about Shermer’s behaviour for years, but it’s only come out publicly for the last year.

    Let’s make it simple. If you had to attend a Cigar/Scotch bar alone as a women, with either Shermer or Dawkins present, which would you choose?

    I’m not a woman, so I can’t reasonably answer this. If I have to, I’m sure I’d say Dawkins. So what does that show? Are you of the opinion that people aren’t able to differentiate between degrees of harmful behaviour? The only person I’ve seen display that seems to be Harris, in his “If everyone is sexist, then no one is” comment. Or do you not agree that the Nazis were probably more harmful than the KKK, though both could reasonably be described as ‘racist’?

  20. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    @ SF

    Please explain to me the equivocation over what people say versus what they do.

    You may want to sit down for this and make sure you have your smelling salts handy but….

    speaking is an action.

    If you had to attend a Cigar/Scotch bar alone as a women, with either Shermer or Dawkins present, which would you choose?

    Are you even for real? Is that the best you can come up with? That he’s less likely to rape a woman than Michael Shermer?

  21. Anthony K says

    Are you even for real? Is that the best you can come up with? That he’s less likely to rape a woman than Michael Shermer?

    It seems SF is arguing against all the people who are saying Richard Dawkins did the same thing as Shermer. Not sure who these people are, but their equivocation must not stand.

    As a person of colour, would you prefer to drink scotch and smoke cigars with David Duke or Hitler? If you pick David Duke, then David Duke must not be racist! Bwahaha!

  22. xyz says

    Seriously, “does not have a track record of rape” is not enough to establish someone as an acceptable ally. That is a laughably low bar to clear.

  23. RW2718 says

    To xyz:

    It’s not a false dichotomy – it’s the central issue of this debate (which most of the respondents here either don’t get or don’t want to get). What people like Dawkins have said – over and over – is that if you mash together different issues that are orders of magnitude apart into a lump, you lose the ability to do very much that’s useful. (And, after a while, the people you want and need as your allies stop listening to you.)

    Is someone leering at a woman bad and a creep? YES! But if I have to spend my time and effort fighting against him or against someone who throws acid at young girls brave enough to attend a school, I want to spend 99% of my effort fighting the acid throwers and 1% of my time worrying about the leering boor.

    They’re not the same. Lumping them together is foolish and not useful.

  24. Anthony K says

    Just so we’re all on the same page here, when people criticise the Catholic Church for covering up cases of child abuse, we’re not actually saying the people covering up the crimes raped children. Multiple things are/were going on that are/were harmful, but not all the things were the same. That’s clear enough, right?

  25. Anthony K says

    is that if you mash together different issues that are orders of magnitude apart into a lump

    That’s not what’s happening here.

    But if I have to spend my time and effort fighting against him or against someone who throws acid at young girls brave enough to attend a school, I want to spend 99% of my effort fighting the acid throwers and 1% of my time worrying about the leering boor.

    You know that Dawkins has semi-apologised for “Dear Muslima” right? No need to repeat it.

    But let’s run with this anyway:

    What’s worse: an acid-thrower, or someone who calls Richard Dawkins sexist? Since you’re here, arguing with us, rather than fighting the acid-throwers, should we conclude you don’t actually care about acid-throwers?

  26. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    Shorter RW2718: It’s not a false dichotomy but if I had to choose between these two things which I’m pretending are the only two options I’d choose this one.”

  27. RW2718 says

    You’re assuming that I don’t do both and that I don’t spend only a fraction of the time worrying about this conversation than I do on other issues. Sorry. Nope.

  28. Anthony K says

    You’re assuming that I don’t do both and that I don’t spend only a fraction of the time worrying about this conversation than I do on other issues. Sorry. Nope.

    Look! Up there! It’s a bird! It’s a plane! No, it’s the goddamn fucking point!

  29. Anthony K says

    Now, going back to SF’s original comment #22:

    In contrast some one like Shermer is a predator who doesn’t deserve to be in polite company much less running a major skeptical organization based on what any unbiased person should conclude based on the preponderance of evidence of what he has done.

    The original issue was Shermer. People were trying to have Shermer dealt with. That was the 99% focus RW2718 is talking about.

    But Dawkins jumped in, specifically to thwart any actions taken against Shermer. He’s in the way of this effort, which is why we have to spend time dealing with HIM, and his clout and his desire to play Catholic Church and hush up the accusers. That’s why we have to spend time dealing with him.

    These issues aren’t isolated, and there’s no ability to choose which one to focus on. Dawkins has inserted himself between those who want to stop Shermer, and Shermer. He’s thrown himself on the grenade.

  30. brucegee1962 says

    Jumping back a bit to the OP — I think the point about different cultural expectations in different cultures is an interesting one. For another example, I think that if you asked most people nowadays, “who is more interested in sex, men or women?” many would say men — the whole “every fifteen seconds” canard. But if you go back to the middle ages, the whole stereotype of sex-obsessed women was well established in literature and religion — look at the portrayal of the Wife of Bath, for instance.

    You can’t separate yourself from your culture — doubly so if you deny its influence.

  31. SF says

    Again, if you don’t like Dawkins that’s fine. For the record, his defense of Shermer was a bad move. But verbal jujitsu, however poorly stated is not the same thing as actual violence to women. I commend the courage of Alison and the shit she’s has to put up with, probably for the rest of her life, for something she had absolutely no control over happening. Same with all other women who have suffered similar things. Again all I am saying is clear distinctions must be made.

  32. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    We can all scroll and see that nobody is saying it’s the same. We’re saying he’s providing cover for people committing “actual violence” against women. It’s not the same but it’s not completely distinct, either.

  33. R Johnston says

    The main distinction that has to be made between Shermer and Dawkins is that Shermer is a rapist who belongs in prison. No one is saying that Dawkins is a rapist or should be treated as one, so SF, please go fuck off with your “distinctions must be made.” That’s just a pathetic effort to defend the indefensible acts of Dawkins.

    Shermer and Dawkins are both irredeemably awful, horrifically sexist people.
    Shermer and Dawkins are both bullies of immense privilege who cry falsely about being victims.
    Shermer and Dawkins are both spectacularly irrational people who can’t think their way out of a wet paper bag when it comes to confronting any facts that challenge their views of the world, especially their views of themselves.
    Shermer and Dawkins are both people who, along with any defenders they have, should be excluded from polite society.

  34. SF says

    Should have said tacit implicit defense, since he didn’t ever explicitly defend Shermer as far as I can tell.

  35. Lady Mondegreen (aka Stacy) says

    @rw2718 says #5

    The issue, as I see it, isn’t with calling everything sexist. It’s with the simplistic view that there’s no degree of differentiation between different degrees of sexism. So, when you say that someone who hits on a woman that doesn’t want to be hit on is sexist to the same degree as someone who performs genital mutilation, you lose me

    Who says that?

    #31

    What people like Dawkins have said – over and over – is that if you mash together different issues that are orders of magnitude apart into a lump, you lose the ability to do very much that’s useful.

    Recognizing and pointing out toxic attitudes is part of the work that needs to be done to tackle toxic behaviors.

  36. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    I didn’t say he explicitly defended anyone at all, Shermer or otherwise. When you make excuses for the behavior, you’re providing cover. Just like we constantly accuse moderate theists of providing cover for fundies by making excuses for their behavior. Put your fucking script away and start engaging with what people are actually saying or go away.

  37. SF says

    Dawkins hasn’t done anything of the sort. I for one can use my brain read the accounts, and see clearly Shermer is a reprehensible liar and a vicious predator that I wouldn’t want anything to do with. I don’t read a Dawkins tweet and say uhuh Shermer is a cool dude. I’m a case in point that you are wrong about Dawkins supposed great influence over how people think.

  38. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    Who the fuck claimed that anyone would read Dawkins and consciously think to themselves “uhuh Shermer is a cool dude”? Dawkins is part of a wider culture that makes excuses for behavior like Shermer’s. Nobody is claiming that anyone is making life decisions based solely on the word of Richard Fucking Dawkins. Jesus fuck read for comprehension.

  39. SF says

    You are implying that, otherwise why be upset about a series of stupid tweets. Your taking something trivial and making it cosmic. Again if he had done anything of the sort attributable to Shermer, it would be a whole different ball game.

  40. aziraphale says

    I’m with the Harpy on this. Reluctantly, because Dawkins has meant a lot to me as an author on science and atheism. But it seems clear that Shermer has, at least, had sex with a woman who he knew was too drunk to consent. No-one should be defending such behaviour. If someone of Dawkins’ public profile does so, it’s a major issue.

    If Dawkins has anything constructive to say, he needn’t do it on the constrained and unsubtle platform of Twitter. He has his own web site with a wide audience.

  41. xyz says

    RW: feel free to show me what issues I mashed into a lump. Just because Dawkins expresses misogyny via words instead of criminal, physical violation doesn’t mean I have to accept it or want to be in a room with him. People can go on and on saying “distinctions must be made” but we can still decide both people are not people we wish to ally ourselves with.

    This really isn’t that hard to understand.

  42. Jackie says

    So, when you say that someone is sexist to the same degree as someone who performs genital mutilation, you lose me.

    Could you point to an occasion where anyone has done this? Also, are you really arguing for giving cookies to people for being less bigoted than people who are so steeped in misogyny that they cut off little girls’ genitals? Is that where you draw the line? Really? If the great thought leaders of atheism aren’t out lopping off labia we should not call them sexist?
    Also,

    who hits on a woman that doesn’t want to be hit on

    This little gem tells me what a massive sexist you are. You couldn’t call it what it is, could you? You could not call it sexual harassment.

  43. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    You are implying that, otherwise why be upset about a series of stupid tweets. Your taking something trivial and making it cosmic. Again if he had done anything of the sort attributable to Shermer, it would be a whole different ball game.

    The fact that you need someone to do something on the level of actually committing rape before you think it’s worthwhile to condemn their behavior speaks volumes about you.

  44. SF says

    I think I should stop reading Shakespeare, after all he gave his wife his second best bed, he horded grain during a famine, and he was anti-semitic. I’m going to start a campaign to get rid of two major textbooks Molecular Biology of the Gene and Molecular Biology of the Cell. They are both origainally co-written by James Watson, who basically stole his research from Rosalyn Franklin and wrote a sexist book about it, and he has said way more acrimonious sexist as well as racist shit than Dawkins has ever alleged to have done, as well as a behavior pattern as well. While I’m at it, I’m going to protest any research associated with DNA since it is associated with Watson. Kary Mullis another guy who developed polymerase chain reaction (PCR) has also said some pretty sexist shit too, and is an AIDS denier, climate change denier so this will add ammo to my campaign against DNA. We shouldn’t be doing PCR on this basis as well.

    The point is what is the point. We should burn all of Dawkins books and pretend he never existed, because of some offensive tweets. If we start this game, where does it end. What are we really trying to accomplish by this endless discussion about Dawkins tweets.

    I said it’s not just rape, but actual demonstrable behavior in hiring practices, harassment, exclusion of people on the basis of race, sex, etc, in personal and professional relationships, then it should be paid attention to.

  45. SF says

    Distinctions are very important. Remember Bush said “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” We can all agree that that lack of distinction has lead to implications we are still dealing with to this day with human tragedy manifested on a global scale.

  46. Anthony K says

    think I should stop reading Shakespeare,

    Seeing as you’re pretty terrible at the whole reading thing anyway, I’m sure there are many better things you can be doing with your time.

    But why not throw those books away? They’re just words and don’t have any effect, so what’s the point? Dawkins’ tweets, textbooks, scientific literature…it’s all just words, words, words.

    They’re not actions, and actions are what count. Thanks for making that distinction clear.

  47. xyz says

    So… we’re down to vaguely saying distinctions must be made between things (just things in general I guess?) because one time George W. Bush said he wouldn’t make distinctions.

    And something about how how we shouldn’t burn Dawkins’ books or deny the existence of DNA. I guess torching obvious straw men is ok though.

  48. SF says

    I don’t defend Dawkins tweets BTW. Some of them are reprehensible such as the Downs baby tweet. But I don’t keep up enough with them to give a damn anyway. They are just not that important. I don’t care that much, they have no influence on my behavior or thoughts in any way. Dawkins isn’t relevant to any of my ideas about feminism or equality in society. You can call that compartmentalizing but I don’t care.

    What I have paid attention to are some of his scientific ideas such as the Selfish Gene and the concept of the meme, which I think have stood the test of time. That stuff I read and ponder and will continue to. If you don’t want to it’s your loss. The ideas aren’t going to go away. History is filled with racist sexist xenophobic assholes the world over who yet have made important contributions. That is what I focus on.

    We can’t do anything about the past, but if someone in the present is implicated in directly harming someone along the lines I stated, I think we should pay attention and point it out. All the acrimony about all the other stuff is a waste of time, its fine to point it out but it doesn’t go anywhere, it makes for an entertaining blogosphere war but has little or no relevance to the real world, or things we should actually be concerned about. I guess if I had a personal relationship with Dawkins or anyone else and they did something explicitly offensive to me, or someone I knew in common, things would be different. but I don’t so they aren’t.

  49. John Morales says

    xyz, good point.

    Consider this pullquote:

    When Sam Harris insists “I’m not the sexist pig you’re looking for,” he’s assuming that “you said something sexist,” translates into/as “you think that men are better than women,” or even “you are a male supremacist.” But that’s not what “you said something sexist” means. That’s not what it means at all.

    I grant that it’s not what it entails, so it’s not necessarily what it means, but it may be what it means; specifically, there’s good warrant to think that’s what it means when someone who has previously indicated that a history of recidivist sexist claims makes them believe the claimant is actually a sexist person calls out another sexist claim.

    (Or: the defensiveness is not necessarily based on an assumption)

    I guess torching obvious straw men is ok though.

    What straw men are you torching?

    (They’re not obvious to me)

  50. SF says

    And don’t come back with – why don’t you read Shermer. I have in the past, before all this and concluded he doesn’t say anything worth reading that has not already been said much better elsewhere. If I want to read about libertarianism, I can pick up any old book by Ayn Rand.

  51. Joy inTorah says

    @31 Throwing acid on women and blacklisting women come from the same base attitudes about women. They are different in their severity of course. The attitude is ‘she is lower than me because she is a woman.’ That’s the point. Women shouldn’t have to choose the lesser of two evils. That’s a cop out that evades the root problem to begin with. ~just a radical feminist

  52. SF says

    Just remember Richard Dawkins is Labour not Tory. Richard Dawkins is very much this side of feminism, in Rush Limbaugh Tea Party America. Remember who the real enemies are.

  53. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    Are you just copy/pasta-ing off of some online random sentence generator at this point? If not, you should try it. You’d probably make more sense.

  54. SF says

    I really take great pains in trying to see both sides or even multiple sides of a given issue, I really do. I know I don’t always make the right call, nobody does. It is really interesting how tiny differences turn into deep rifts, especially in the so-called atheist community these days. I guess I’m a real enemy because I’m a person who still wants to try to understand all sides (and no not the false dichotomous side of our good guys and your evil guys). Oh well, I know it is doomed to failure, I’m not saying I don’t have my biases either.

  55. jonathancantwell says

    This realisation was actually the /specific/ very important first step along the path to being a feminist (and being a /shitton/ more rational in a lot of different ways), for me – the distinction between privilege or saying / doing / liking something problematic, and being called a shitty person. I aaaalmost agree with Crommunist on this one, but I think acknowledgement of bias is more important than tiptoeing around terminology, and I feel like any terminology you used to talk about this would eventually euphemism-treadmill to the point of uselessness.

  56. xyz says

    SF, then please perk up your ears and listen to people who are trying to tell you why Dawkins’ comments are, for some of us, indicative of way more than “tiny differences.” His attitude has been very dismissive of many women’s concerns since his Dear Muslima post and are only getting worse. These latest comments on rape are indefensible and are, in fact, hurtful to the cause of women getting respect and parity in skeptic circles.

    When I hear someone imply that feminists view all sex as rape until proven otherwise or something like that, from a public figure who is held up as a leader, he may as well hold up a giant flashing sign saying “xyz is unwelcome.” I know that attitudes like that are an indicator of belief in myths about rape and a jaded view of women’s place in society. I also know that these attitudes provide cover for actual rapists. All of these things are unacceptable to me.

    Above, you asked whether we would rather attend a party with Shermer or Dawkins. I said I’d stay home. Let me expand on that. I’d be wary of going to the Dawkins party for two reasons. First, although insults are not the same thing as assault, I don’t choose to spend time with people who insult me or my views. It’s unpleasant and a waste of time, effort and goodwill. Second, if a group welcomes and even venerates a “Dawkins” who engages in rape apology and says sexist things, I know from experience that the group is pretty likely to harbor a “Shermer”, someone who is actually willing to rape. Sexist attitudes correlate highly with sexist actions.

    I’ll try one more bonus explanation. Say that you were invited to a party given by someone who you knew disdained atheists and who, when a friend of his was accused of beating up atheists, made passive aggressive comments that atheists are liars who often exaggerate the violence they face.

    Would you go to that party? Would you feel safe there?

  57. Richard Wheybrew says

    So, someone named Folie Deuce (is that the same Deuce from Jerkcity?) said something and this is totally related to Sam Harris.

    No. Strawperson.

    When Sam Harris insists “I’m not the sexist pig you’re looking for,” you have no idea what he’s assuming because you’re not Sam Harris. You have no idea what it’s like to be Sam Harris, none of us do (other than Sam Harris). Why do you think you can keep speaking for him?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *