In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Shorter Dawkins: Real Feminists Agree With Me

tigtog

And he wants the nasty ‘radical’ feminists to stop picking on (i.e. talking about the predatory sexual behaviour patterns of) his friend. As usual for him recently, he set this up with some plausibly deniable subtweeting and now is getting huffy about the reactions he’s just trolled for.  Expect the passive aggressive blog post ‘splaining how his critics just don’t know how to think properly about the deep thoughts of Dawkins within the next 48 hours.

[Content note: links to material discussing rape culture, victim blaming, rape myths, sexual harassment]

Then there was this (since deleted) tweet:

This tweet referencing the deleted tweet above is still visible:

Yes, that’s what he said. Listening to and believing women who report their experiences of sexism and misogyny and harassment and assault and offering them support in seeking social change to the attitudes that perpetuate sexism and misogyny and harassment and assault? That’s disrespecting women, and acknowledging the truth of anybody’s victimisation by anyone else is patronising them. But pretending that sexism and misogyny and harassment and assault is not really happening is truly respecting women!

Almost exactly a year ago I posted about the ongoing sexism and misogyny fallout in the skeptical and secular activist communities, ever since Rebecca Watson said “Guys, don’t do that”, and as this latest Dawkins snit shows, that particular cyberstorm is still raging on. Jason Thibeault’s timeline of sexual harassment accusations in those communities since May 2012 has had some significant additions in the last few days due to this article on BuzzFeed on allegations against Michael Shermer and various reactions to it.

UPDATE – FURTHER READING: Dana Hunter at En Tequila Es Verdad – The Shermer Allegations: Some Considerations for Those to Whom This Is a Nasty Shock

FURTHER UPDATE – Dawkins has now doubled down and jumped the shark with a triple twist and pike – Richard Dawkins: The Wrongering. See also Rebecca Watson at Skepchick – Dear Innocent People Murdered in Witch Hunts

N.B. (because past experience in discussing this topic shows that this disclaimer is necessary) – There is no evidence at all that the skeptical and secular activist communities have any peculiar problem with sexism/misogyny/harassment/assault, they just have the same sexism and misogyny problems as society in general, and have been openly discussing it in recent years to the point of Deep Rifts™ between those who accept that rape culture is a real social phenomenon and those who don’t.

25 thoughts on Shorter Dawkins: Real Feminists Agree With Me

  1. Pingback: Dawkins stirs the pot again

  2. As a wee baby atheist, I never thought I’d find myself saying this, but

    RICHARD DAWKINS WILL YOU PLEASE JUST SHUT UP NOW.

    His credibility would be so much better if the tool’d never found the Internet.

    1. As a serious atheist sympathizer I agree and add Thunderfoot to the list of shut up and stick to hard science. They should stick to what they are good at; dealing with religion and creationists.

    2. Agreed! I read The Selfish Gene years and years ago, and was pretty fascinated by its novel conceptualization of the gene and the introduction of the idea of the “meme” (the original definition of it is actually really interesting — so much more than a cute cat macro). So when he started speaking out as an atheist, that was pretty exciting.

      Aaaaaand then the whole “Elevatorgate” thing happened, and he had to open his trap with the cringe-worthy “Dear Muslima” comment, and it’s been getting more and more awful ever since. Way to destroy your own legacy, dude. Ugh!

  3. And on a more concrete note, I never cease to be amazed at the dudes that get criticized by feminists then immediately jump to “Well, REAL feminists agree with me!”

    Did I miss the meeting of the International Feminist Conspiracy where we made Richard Dawkins the arbiter of feminism?

  4. Every time Dawkins opens his mouth about anything other than evolution and creationism, something stupid and offensive comes out these days.

  5. …All occurrences of sexual intercourse are rape unless there is certified evidence to the contrary…/blockquote>

    Leaving aside the misogyny, I don’t understand how a scientist who prides himself on logic and rationalism could make this obviously untrue statement which is based on no evidence. Just as Dawkins would say that evidence for evolution is far too strong to deny, the evidence that some uncertified sexual intercourse is not considered rape is far too strong to deny.

    I don’t know, this just seems stupid.

      1. It’s meant to sound stupid, it’s words he’s putting into the mouths of his strawfeminists.

        Strawfeminists, exactly. You’d think a scientist would point at actual feminists saying something before he made a claim- even if he were going to disagree with it in a misogynistic way.

        1. I’m not sure Dawkins has done much science in years. I want to a talk by him a couple years ago and it was pretty much backpatting over how much smarter than religious people he was + some creepy paternalistic racism re: saving the poor brown womenz from religion.

          I don’t expect much of anything good from him these days, and he’s not exactly who I want representing me as an atheist. :-/

  8. I’ve been an atheist since the mid 60’s and it has been a liberating thing for me. Joining large groups is not any different IMO to joining some organized religion. Atheism to me is about freedom and thinking on your own, not listening to small group of people telling me to fall in lockstep with whatever they think is the right way to go.

    1. Yes, but what does your personal history with regards to atheism have to do with Richard Dawkins making really terrible statements that display his utter ignorance of the dynamics and culture of rape, and feminism ?

        1. But how is your lack of interest in Dawkins relevant to this post? Why bother commenting at all if that’s all you’ve got to say?

          ETA: Dawkins is a prominent ‘public intellectual’ who is regularly referred to by the media as a ‘leader’ in freethought/atheism (although he is of course just a celebrity atheist, and thus this makes him a ‘hero’ to some, however he is not in any way a leader in the way that the Pope is the leader of Roman Catholicism or even in the way that a pastor is the leader of a congregation – nobody formally voted for him, not even a council of Cardinals or elected Elders – all he did was write some bestselling books). Because of his media prominence, what he says matters in terms of the public perception of atheists, no matter how much many of us would wish it otherwise.

  11. Pingback: Done with Dawkins

Comments are currently closed.