Here’s the thing. If you have a conspicuous history of complaining about “American women” objecting to what you consider trivial problems like sexual harassment, it’s silly for you to insist that you’re an “ardent feminist.” You can’t do both, as the saying goes. You can take constant potshots at feminism, or you can be an ardent feminist, but you can’t do both. You can claim you’re an ardent feminist while taking constant potshots at feminism, but it won’t be an honest claim.
Just last November – such a short time ago – Kimberly Winston made clear what a yawning gap there is between the claims to be a passionate feminist and the reality.
Bottom line: He stands by everything he has said — including comments that one form of rape or pedophilia is “worse” than another, and that a drunken woman who is raped might be responsible for her fate.
“I don’t take back anything that I’ve said,” Dawkins said from a shady spot in the leafy backyard of one of his Bay Area supporters. “I would not say it again, however, because I am now accustomed to being misunderstood…”
It isn’t misunderstanding.
Dawkins, however, disagrees. He is, he said, not a misogynist, as some critics have called him, but “a passionate feminist.” The greatest threats to women, in his view, are Islamism and jihadism — and his concern over that sometimes leads him to speak off-the-cuff.
“I concentrate my attention on that menace and I confess I occasionally get a little impatient with American women who complain of being inappropriately touched by the water cooler or invited for coffee or something which I think is, by comparison, relatively trivial,” he said.
That right there – that’s what rules out being a passionate or ardent feminist. A man who “gets impatient” with women mildly objecting to unwanted sexual invitations is not an ardent feminist, however convinced he is that he fits the description, and however often he tweets that he is he is he IS.
“And so I occasionally wax a little sarcastic, and I when I have done that, I then have subsequently discovered some truly horrific things, which is that some of the women who were the butt of my sarcasm then became the butt of really horrible or serious threats, which is totally disgusting and I know how horrible that is and that, of course, I absolutely abominate and absolutely repudiate and abhor.”
Years too late.
That paragraph about “relatively trivial” concerns from women is so ridiculous.
He’s saying that women who are concerned about instances of sexism that actually happens to them are wrong and should instead be concerned more about some “what if” scenario in which their non-Muslim governments will somehow be forcing them to wear burqas. In short, listen to me when I tell you what’s important for you women.
That right there is why you’re not a feminist, Richard.
Actually, I can empathize with Dawkins a teeny bit. He’s like my dad. My dad worked at the local radio station for a while. While there, he must have had a lot of free time because he took it upon himself to make an index card file of the entire music library of the station. He didn’t ask if anyone wanted this index, or if they did, how they wanted it done, he just did it. Over the course of time, he left the station. A few years later, he came back to help them install some new equipment and during this he discovered that his boxes of index cards had been dumped in a corner of the bathroom, obviously not used by anyone. He was very hurt by this. The rest of the family saw immediately that this was yet another instance of him charging in like a bull and doing a project the way HE decided it was best done, and he just couldn’t even imagine that other people might not see things the same way.
Seems to me there is no single specific “greatest threat” to women-in-the-abstract — it depends what society the woman in question lives in. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia? All that Islamist crap. In the West? Different hazards, most of which are less immediately lethal, but still not nothing. (Unless you’re the daughter of a Muslim immigrant family with conservative views, of course).
But threats (mostly) elsewhere to faceless women (mostly) elsewhere done by people who aren’t like me are so much easier to rail against.
My wife and I were talking about this yesterday. She wasn’t aware of all the feminist related stuff Dawkins has spouted (she’s barely aware of Dawkins, thank goodness!).
After summarizing his…stance… and pointing her to some articles, she noted that most people try to take their foot out of their mouth when they say something that stupid, but Dawkins is gnawing his kneecap and working upward….
I love that woman. She has such a way with words.
Sometimes, I imagine what a day is like for Dawkins’ friends.
“Hey, Richard! My car broke down, do you think you could help me tow it to a shop sometime this week?”
“Really?! Fundamentalist Islam is everywhere, and you’re worried about your CAR?!?! Honestly, where are your priorities?!”
————
“Hey, Richard! My kid is a little sick, so I have to pick her up from school early. Do you think you can cover for me?”
“There are Muslims out there, who would behead you for being an atheist, and you’re passing that issue up over some mild illness?! What is wrong with you?!”
————
“Hey, Richar-”
“MUSLIMS, MAN!!! MUSLIMS!!!!!”
Eamon Knight @3:
Yep. And he probably doesn’t have to worry about any of his fellow Global Thought Leaders practicing female genital mutilation or forcing a hijab on anyone. Focusing on those problems spares a lot of awkwardness and cognitive dissonance.
Of course, Dawkins has shown that he’s quite willing to rail about the less heinous wrongs in the world, as long as it isn’t his or his friends’ oxen being gored. Complaining about terms like “Muslim children,” “Christian children,” etc. is surely pretty far down the list of the great tragedies of our time, but he made a big deal about it in TGD and explicitly made the positive comparison to feminist “consciousness-raising.”
some bastard @ 5 – prize-winning entry.
LOL! Dawkins’ tweet immediately brought this to mind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=OhZRDoGZg00#t=122
“And speaking as ardent feminist myself….”
Remember that Dawkins was the one to whine loudly when his jar of honey was confiscated by TSA.
If by “most people” you are excluding all the anti-feminists, or all the “ardent feminists but” folks who think that we are complaining over nothing. For this group, foot in the mouth disease is chronic and irreversible, apparently.
A good mansplainin’ always starts with a warm-up session of doubling down.
He’s like my dad
Did people try, over and over, to explain to your dad, with varying levels of panic and growing horror that they didn’t need the card catalog? Because, if – after months of people trying to give him a clue gently, then finally breaking with him – he didn’t get it: then he’s maybe like Dawkins. But only if your dad took a deep breath, thought about it, and then doubled down.
“…I know how horrible that is…”
fucking liar
And, in all fairness Dawkins thinks he is being suppressed by “a climate of intransigent thought police”
He ought to try being suppressed by ISIL, then he’d really have something to complain about. Oh, wait. I just Dawkinsed, didn’t I?
Dawkins problem is and has always been an inability to engage in any kind of self-reflection. On occasion he discovers something: That people who hold attitudes and ideas about feminism similar to his engage in horrible acts. In Dawkins, they only motivate annoyance and cynicism, driving him to sarcasm and scoffing. In others, they motivate hatred and anger, driving them to violence, abuse, and threats thereof. And Dawkins conveniently always comes to the same conclusion: There must be something wrong with those other people rather than something wrong with the attitudes and ideas.
Cassidy, #8
Yes! That’s so good!
Ok, Dawkins, you say you’re an ardent feminist? Prove it. What have you done to help Muslimina? What steps have you taken to end genital mutilation the Middle East? Let’s have a look at your foundation’s web page and find out.
But not the future of Muslim women abroad? How dare you snipe at the petty problems of “American women,” when your organization is focused on issues most American women would find petty!
Why did I click on that Twitter feed? It’s full of people using tags like #feminismisahatemovement and categorizing feminists as religious nuts who are More Feminist Than Thou. If only there were fewer Jessica Valentis in the world! (actual tweet)
One person actually said: “I’m still looking for a right men have that women don’t.” That’s when I stopped, for fear of permanent face-desk injury.
If Dawkins is really arguing in good faith here, his problem may be that he fails to realize that the things that are “truly horrific” in his opinion and those that he considers “relatively trivial” should not be seen as isolated incidents that have little or nothing to do with each other, but as parts of a continuum of misogyny that encompasses anything from small annoyances to life-threatening atrocities, and that there is therefore no clear limit for an “acceptable” level of misogyny.
Rubbish. The greatest threats to women are, in order:
1) The sun exploding
2) Asteroid impact (may be #3 depending on size)
3) The world’s nuclear arsenal spontaneously and simultaneously detonating
Well, at least that’s what I can come up with when I completely disregard the probabilities of events. That’s what we’re doing, right? Sensible risk management without the sense?
So until all that’s fixed Dawkins is really just wasting his time on trivial concerns. And ours. The nerve…
A white man telling women to quiet down and fear brown men. Again?
Such feminism. So not racist. Much equality.
Oh, but of course Mr. Dawkins is a feminist!
Just like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were abolitionists. I think I even heard that G. Washington was once heard to say that slavery was a bad idea.
\snark
Which leads to a basic question: “what is it with this ‘American’ thingie?”. Is it “this crowd” being obcessed with American feminists? Or culturally entrailed ‘divergent’ priority analysis in diverse feminist movements Westernwide? (Sorry, this geographical limitation only reflects my own sources bias, I am actually not fully aware of feminist struggles beyond this limit or it than expands to not-feminist limited prospects) (What I’m trying to say is that indeed, there seems to be a difference in focus between New World and Old World movements, which doesn’t imply non-intersectionnality in focus intents –and I feel this is actually enriching more than disturbing). (and maybe that is still not very clear, but the thing is really: why do they focus so strongly on the American feminism brand?).
Of course a quick answer is that it is probably linked to the proximity of feminism and atheism movements in North America. But then is this “proximity gap” only finding roots because the Old world is “already” more secular?
Remove the possibility from your mind. He’s not.
“A man who ‘gets impatient’ with women mildly objecting to unwanted sexual invitations is not an ardent feminist, however convinced he is that he fits the description, and however often he tweets that he is he is he IS.
Well, there’s your problem. Dawkins (and the rest of those who give us Straight, White, Cis-Males a bad name) don’t think women can’t ever “mildly” object to anything they do. That’s how a 5 second comment stating how being hit on in an elevator (by somebody who hadn’t spoken to them all night after she spoke for 6 hours on how she doesn’t like being hit on at conferences) becomes a huge deal.
UnknownEric the Apostate #25
Agreed. That ship has sailed. People have been explaining this stuff to him, literally, for years. He’s a smart guy. If he’s not getting it, it’s because he doesn’t want to.
I admit I was one who gave Dawkins a lot of benefit of the doubt. Way too much for way too long.
These aren’t just “foot in mouth” moments. He doesn’t regret what he said, because those are his real, true feelings on the subject.
I give him a lot of credit for taking on the forces of darkness in a lot of areas — but a feminist he most decidedly is not.
UnknownEric@25:
Sadly, I think you’re wrong here. Dawkins is arguing in good faith; he’s just not really that smart. He can’t see that he’s spewing utterly illogical and self-contradictory nonsense. He’s a technician in his chosen fields who does not actually have a generalizable ability to approach the world analytically. He can repeat what he’s learned about why atheism is right, and he can do so charismatically and convincingly, but he doesn’t really understand what he’s saying; he’s just repeating an argument he’s learned that supports his beliefs and that happens to be a sound argument.
Dawkins doesn’t actually understand how with every breath and action he takes he directly contradicts the premise of “Dear Muslima.” He doesn’t actually understand how prevalent and damaging sexual harassment is because he’s not really very good at observing the world. He doesn’t actually understand how alienating and othering secular and moderate muslims is a really bad idea if he wants to oppose muslim extremism.
Don’t make the mistake of attributing particular analytic intelligence to Dawkins because he can very articulately repeat some truths about atheism where the hard work of analytically evaluating those truths came before him. Every time he’s stepped outside of his chosen fields he’s displayed little or no analytic capability at all.