Adam Lee sums up the most recent outbreaks at Comment is Free.
He was, like me, a big fan of Dawkins. Now? Not so much.
Neither of us just plunged into this not so much state randomly or on a whim, nor did we do so as an exciting new way to draw attention to ourselves. It had to do with reasons, with things he said and did.
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.
I had my doubts about that last item, to be honest, because I was pretty sure he meant a very limited, conservative, Sommersesque brand of “feminism” there, the kind that is good with formal equality but appalled by any attempts to dispel stereotypes or improve attitudes and even behavior. His recent tweets on the subject have confirmed that.
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.
He also spelled out that it was Freethought Blogs specifically that he was accusing of all this – the network that includes Maryam Namazie, Taslima Nasreen, Tauriq Moosa, Kaveh Mousavi, Hiba Krisht, Avicenna, Nirmukta, Yemi Ilesanmi, etc etc etc.
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?”
I still would really like to know the answer to that question. I would really like to know why it’s all right for him to be provocative but it’s just cynical money-seeking in people who criticize him.
On other occasions, Dawkins himself has emphasized the importance of awakening people to injustice and mistreatment they may have overlooked. But when it comes to feminism, he’s steadfastly refused to let his own consciousness be raised. Instead, he clings to his insular and privileged viewpoint – and, worse, he’s creating the impression that “true” atheists all share his retrograde attitudes.
Thus helping to ensure that atheism and secularism will remain divided and weak.
Bingo. When the dictionary atheists say “our movement should ONLY be about not believing in gods,” they mean, “our movement should be about not believing in gods, being raging sexist assholes, and patting ourselves on the back for it.”
I agree with 100% of what you said…except for the last 2 words.
If anyone accuses atheism of being a religion and Dawkins its pope, one needs to go no further than this incident to disabuse them of that notion.
In order to forge steel, you need to turn up the heat. Now, I’m not going “full Nietzsche” on this — oftentimes what doesn’t kill you can leave you permanently disabled. But in the theater of ideas? I think this only creates stronger arguments, a vastly more distributed and egalitarian “leadership” (air quotes intentional), and filters out the reactionaries.
Like many, many others, I’m fine with being “divided”. They can go their own way, hold their own little meetings where they snigger at their cocktail parties about how lame the rest of us are. And watch with horror as their circle of influence shrinks day after day, week after week, year after year.
It’s tough when you’re the one being sniped at, for sure. But this will turn out for the better (look at me, being all Pollyanna). Heck, it will even end up benefiting them.
Kevin at #2 —
I share your cautious optimism, and I’m glad I’m not the only Pollyanna around here! I think that in the end, reason and compassion will prevail. I especially like your last point — the controversy will even make “them” better.
But even if not, what choice do we have? I refuse to be silent and hold hands with the Olde Guard, just for the sake of strength in numbers. Let them label me a “Social Justice Warrior” — I’ll wear it with pride.
@3…good point. What choice do we have? Join them? Not likely.
“Thus helping to ensure that atheism and secularism will remain divided and weak.”
I don’t think this has to do with atheism and secularism. You’ll see the same thing with any other group, whether it is secular, religious, political or whatever. It’s male vs. female, just like black vs. white, latino vs. white, latino vs latino (i’m from the caribbean and i’ve perceived hostility from central-america latinos)….
Some of us might “not get it”. But IMHO, i don’t think what he expressed is what he truly feels like. Maybe he expressed himself wrongly, who hasn’t?
Reading the comments on Lee’s piece, it seems a lot of people think this dispute is the equivalent of a religious schism. It isn’t. The main dispute is this: in 2011 an atheist activist complained of sexual harassment, and Dawkins’ response was to ridicule her, stand by when she received rape and death threats and attempt to block her from speaking at atheist conferences. In 2013 one of Dawkins’ friends faced serious rape allegations, and Dawkins’ response was to do nothing, and now the issue has received greater publicity, to lie about the victim’s testimony, cruelly mock her, and accuse anyone who protests of belonging to the ‘thought police’.
This is not the equivalent of a bunch of medieval theologians discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It is not the Communist Party of Britain (Marxist Leninist) refusing to speak to the heretics of the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist Leninist). It is not a bunch of Trotskyists tearing out one another’s hair over whether the Soviet Union was a ‘deformed’ or a ‘degenerated’ workers’ state. It is simply a bunch of people wondering whether the world’s best known critic of religion and his admirers would mind not being such utter dicks.
A rallying cry perhaps? Hey, Richard, stop being a Dick
When you are a very, very, very smart person, if you don’t understand something right away, it must be very tempting to dismiss the topic as being unimportant.
When crowds of people are shouting and pointing and saying you’re missing something, and you don’t see what it is right away, it must be very tempting to decide that they’re just making a lot of fake outrage.
When you know already that you personally are a smart, fair, reasonable person, you know you can’t possibly have done anything to justify this kind of outrage. It must be the fault of the people who are complaining.
Of course, you have to have a big introspective blind spot, but who doesn’t ignore at least some of his or her own failings?
None of this, of course, is meant to exonerate Dawkins, Harris, or any of the others. I have some sympathy: Being smart can sometimes be an unexpected obstacle to acquiring more knowledge. But we need thousands of times more sympathy for the people who are harmed by the attitudes encouraged by the Dawkinses and Harrises of the world.
Tom Phoenix @7:
Richards Dawkins doesn’t have an introspective blind spot, not even a big one. He has an introspective Berlin Wall that tells him life will be over if he tries to cross that line and think critically about what he believes.
Smart people can have blind spots, but lets not belittle smart people by comparing them to Richard Dawkins. Smart people simply don’t behave the way he does.
Has he been told once too often by his admirers that he is *the* great scientist and rationalist, and now believes it?
This is not the futuristic atheist schism from that South Park episode (featuring Dawkins). This is a divide between people trying to listen learn and improve and those who already think they know and think anyone who disagrees is a bad thinker.
It really is the foundation of skepticism and science. Our perceptions and thoughts are flawed. We need to listen and compare with others to find truth. Not dismiss them.
Alex @9:
Probably. Putting it that way, Dawkins strikes me as being very much like Mitt Romney. A moderately bright guy who has all the privilege in the world, who by virtue of birth gets the best education one can get, who works hard and makes the most of his privilege, but who has never been told no or told that he wasn’t the smartest person in the room by anyone he cared to listen to and who is horrified at the thought of confronting his privilege and realizing that his success isn’t due entirely or even primarily to his own innate ability. Dawkins has his fans, Romney has his board members, but the basic dynamic is the same.
R Johnston #8
If only this were true. Problem is, you can find examples of “smart” people behaving in every way imaginable, depending on your definition of smart. Since Dawkins is, almost inarguably, smart by most people’s usage of the word, saying he isn’t smart doesn’t seem like a particularly helpful strategy in convincing his supporters that he might be wrong.
I guess what I’m saying is that if you totally lack any ability to be introspective, you’re not smart. Perhaps you could ace an I.Q. test, but you simply can’t think critically without being able to examine your own ideas. Thinking critically really ought to be seen as a necessary component of being smart.
@10 alternative rallying cry “we’re not the Judean People’s Front you are looking for”