Jenny Kutner at Salon also reports on Dawkins’s unfamiliarity with the Men’s Rights movement.
Noted evolutionary biologist and atheist thinker Richard Dawkins addressed questions of gender discrimination in science head-on at a recent event at Kennesaw State University, responding to a question about the value of feminism in science and the necessity of the men’s rights movement. Dawkins, who has been criticized for contributing to the atheist community’s endemic sexism, said he believes feminism to be “enormously important” — but he wasn’t so sure about men’s rights.
“Feminism, as I understand it, is the political drive towards the equality of women, so that women should not be discriminated against — nobody should be discriminated against — on grounds that don’t merit discrimination,” Dawkins said. “But I don’t, I hardly — is there a men’s rights movement to be supported?”
I look forward to a new series of outraged posts and tweets about these “smears” of Dawkins and his contributions to the endemic sexism in the atheist community. You know they will happen. But…they’re not “smears.” He said what he said. He is who he is – what he says influences many people, so when he says sexist things, yes, he contributes to the atheist community’s endemic sexism.
With massive amounts of privilege comes the luxury of not needing the support of movements and communities. Those who enjoy the rich spoils of their privilege have no need for advocacy groups and have no need for rights movements because they already have all the rights they are entitled to plus many more beyond that. Dawkins, being one of the most privileged people to have ever lived as compared against the rest of the world’s population, has the luxury of remaining blissfully unware of others’ lived experiences and struggles.
Those who are besieged on a minute-by-minute basis by oppression through racism, sexism, misogyny, ableism, you name it, have to rely on these communities and movements to make up for the inherent and tangible power and privilege differential.
Dawkins said “But if there is discrimination against men, then that’s bad too. I don’t know whether there is. I haven’t heard of it.”
That convicts him of not paying attention, maybe. But the clear meaning is that he doesn’t know of any discrimination which would justify the existence of a men’s rights movement. Does that make him sexist or anti-feminist? I don’t see it.
This is not a blanket defence of Dawkins. He has said bad things. But let’s talk about his real offences, not invent new ones.
Nope, just blissfully oblivious to the have-nots, which are most people who aren’t white, male, middle (old?)-aged, Oxford-educated, go-to person for Media, invited to speak all over the world, generally bloody lucky. I’m white, male, middle aged, with a Uni degree, so I know I’ve had the rails-run in life. I know that I won the lottery. I’d like to think I’m aware, but in truth, I’m probably just slightly more aware than Dawkins, because I’m from a generation that came after the first-wave of feminism. No offences against Dawkins or myself, except the refusal to put oneself in another’ shoes, shut-up, and listen.
Are we reading the same things? Dawkins says he doesn’t know of any systematic discrimination against men. That makes him oblivious..to what, exactly? Are you saying there is such discrimination?
For the record, I have been familiar with feminism all my adult life (starting, I think, with Betty Friedan). It’s only in the past few years that I’ve been aware of the men’s rights movement. In the UK it’s not well publicised.
His precise words were that he hasn’t heard of it. The sentence, read as it is, would mean that he is unaware of discrimination against men. Perhaps, however, what he meant, although didn’t express quite accurately, was just that he hasn’t heard of a men’s rights movement.
His precise words, at least as quoted in the post above, were “is there a men’s rights movement to be supported?”
I’m not sure how much more accurately he can convey the idea that he hadn’t heard of a men’s rights movement.
When told about the MRAs, he then went on to say: ““I know nothing about that,” he said. “But if there is discrimination against men, then that’s bad too. I don’t know whether there is. I haven’t heard of it.” ”
In your zeal to disagree with the man you’ve tipped over into illiteracy. There’s really no need. Other stuff he’s said is plenty douchey enough. You don’t have to try so hard.
forgive me. I suffer from a persistent, somewhat irratic affliction. In the technical literature it’s known as memory. Fortunately, you don’t suffer this affliction, and like someone who suffers dementia, all knew utterances of the great Dawkins are context free. I remember this great man uttering things that suggest, neigh scream that feminism is a shibboleth to beat the go gist, but not to support women. I drink beer, but I still am afflicted by memory and the unfortunate context it creates between utterances. There but the grace of…..go you.
Godist, not go its. Stupid iPad!
Let me try to explain myself more clearly. Ophelia writes “…what he says influences many people, so when he says sexist things, yes, he contributes to the atheist community’s endemic sexism.”
In the context of her post, this must mean that she thinks Dawkins’ words as quoted there are sexist. I maintain that they are not.
The context is Ophelia’s pre-emptive reaction (preaction?) to “a new series of outraged posts and tweets” that she clearly states haven’t happened yet. I think the confusion goes back to the original post. She’s not addressing Dawkins. She’s addressing those who would defend him, who would decry legitimate criticism of things he’s said as “smears”. And she’s saying to those people “I know what you’re going to say, and you’re wrong.”
She’s not saying anything to Dawkins, or even about him or anything he’s said (this time). This post is about correcting his MRArmy of defenders… the ones he doesn’t even know he’s got.
Yup, sonofroj has it right. I’d just been seeing some RD-ists on Twitter shouting at anyone who so much as hinted that there might be some sexism among The Atheists. It’s a pattern. That’s what I was addressing.
As background, the term “MRA” is not common in the UK, and most Brits would not know what it meant. Nor, really, is there much suggestion of discrimination against men in UK culture generally. Thus I’m not surprised that Dawkins is unfamiliar with the concept.
The only similar idea that has received some publicity is the group “Fathers 4 justice”, but that’s a much narrower issue, specifically about fathers who lose rights of contact with their children after parents separate.