Richard Dawkins: you’re wrong. Deeply, profoundly, fundamentally wrong. Your understanding of feminism is flawed and misinformed, and further, you keep returning to the same poisonous wells of misinformation. It’s like watching creationists try to rebut evolution by citing Kent Hovind; do you not understand that that is not a trustworthy source? It’s a form of motivated reasoning, in which you keep returning to those who provide the comfortable reassurances that your biases are actually correct, rather than challenging yourself with new perspectives.
Just for your information, Christina Hoff Sommers is an anti-feminist. She’s spent her entire career inventing false distinctions and spinning fairy tales about feminism. That whole “gender feminist” vs. “equity feminist” thing? It’s like microevolution vs. macroevolution. It’s an allusion to a real distinction, mangled into an unrecognizable mess, and presented as a rhetorical tool to permit attacks on the whole idea: “Oh, I believe in X, but not Y”. Doesn’t this sound at all familiar to you? It’s the whole standard creationist set of tropes, repackaged to support a dogmatic status quo!
And yet you persist in presenting these anti-feminist caricatures as reasonable. You say you are a feminist, and even find feminism an undeniable virtue, but at the same time you parrot absurd anti-feminist remarks. Like this one, for example:
.@MhaskarChief With a certain kind of feminist, of course. Not with feminists who truly respect women instead of patronising them as victims
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) September 12, 2014
With a certain kind of feminist, of course. Not with feminists who truly respect women instead of patronising them as victims
Who are these mysterious patronizing feminists? They don’t actually exist. You are echoing a strategy of denial: you approve of feminists, but not the ones who actually point out sexist problems in our culture, or fight against discrimination, or point out that they’ve been raped, or abused, or cheated in the workplace, or any of the other realities of a sexist culture. This is what anti-feminists say: be quiet about the problems. If you mention the problems, you are perpetuating the sisterhood of oppression, you are playing the martyr, you are being a pathetic victim who must be treated with contempt.
But if no woman speaks out about the problems, how will we ever know to correct them? If we shame every victim for being a victim and daring to reveal her victimhood, it becomes very easy to pretend that there is no oppression.
I know. I’ve been there. At every revelation of the hardships women face, I’ve said “No! I’ve never seen that!”, at first. And then the evidence pours in. Women’s names on papers reduces their chances of publication. Women drop out of the science pipeline at a greater rate than men, and are underrepresented in the higher ranks of the professoriate. Conferences are held with all-male or mostly male speakers, and organizers say that they just couldn’t find qualified or interesting women to speak…sometimes right to the faces of qualified, interesting women.
And over time, “No! I’ve never seen that!” has slowly transformed into “How could I be so blind?” and eventually, “What can we do to change this?” My consciousness was raised. I started to realize that pretending the problem doesn’t exist perpetuates it, and that if I want to change the culture, I can’t do it by wallowing in the delusion that equality exists already. You have to confront it. You have to demand change. You have to stand up for a cause and speak out.
You know this. That’s the attitude that drove your outspoken atheism. I only hope that someday you wake up to this same need within feminism, and a day in which you don’t feel the need to qualify what kind of feminist you’ll support with a false claim that there are these weird radical feminists who don’t respect women.
And perhaps someday you’ll stop retweeting people who perpetuate that myth, that there are unsupportable “radical feminists” who must be ostracized because of some unspecified horror in their ideas.
@MhaskarChief @SetagayaGirl @RichardDawkins But radical feminism is now mainstream feminism.And so many ppl are afraid to confront it, sadly
— Miranda Celeste Hale (@mirandachale) September 12, 2014
@mirandachale @RichardDawkins @MhaskarChief @SetagayaGirl I'm a woman and I'm entitled to say that I find radical feminism ridiculous.
— Dörte Faatz (@Bitch2410) September 12, 2014
@mirandachale @RichardDawkins @MhaskarChief @SetagayaGirl I have to disagree, radical feminists are a vocal minority
— Sophie Reddy (@sophie_reddy) September 12, 2014
@sophie_reddy They are a minority, but they are at the forefront which is the problem @mirandachale @RichardDawkins @SetagayaGirl
— Zee Mhaskar (@MhaskarChief) September 12, 2014
Think about all the times you’ve been called a “radical atheist” or “radical” or “revolutionary” or “militant” evolutionist over the years. Did you ever stop and think, “Oh, my, I must have gone too far; perhaps I should be less outspoken in defense of my ideas.”? Do you even know what a “radical evolutionist” could be? Perhaps someone who actually thinks that no deity is required to explain the history of life on earth, and finds natural mechanisms enthralling and fascinating. Which is what you are.
It’s pretty much the same feeling I get when someone denounces me or my friends as “radical feminists”. It’s an attempt to tar a standard, rational position with an emotional word that has lost all meaning, other than to declare that the writer doesn’t like this feminism stuff, no sir, it’s too extreme.
Just a suggestion: read Amanda Marcotte’s take on “radical feminism”.
There is no such thing as a “radical feminist” anymore.
Don’t get me wrong! There was. In the 60s and 70s, there were radical feminists who were distinguishing themselves from liberal feminists. Radical feminists agreed with liberal feminists that we should change the laws to recognize women’s equality, but they also believed that we needed to change the culture. It was not enough to pass the ERA or legalize abortion, they believed, but we should also talk about cultural issues, such as misogyny, objectification, rape, and domestic violence.
In other words, what was once “radical” feminism is now mainstream feminism.
Read that second paragraph carefully. Is there anything you disagree with in that? If not, then welcome, you’re a radical feminist, too. And could you please stop supporting reactionary anti-feminists? Thanks.
RD needs to be jettisoned now. If he’s been reduced to using blatant straw man arguments, there’s no redeeming him. It’s a waste of time.
Yeah, and his insistence that “there either is a god or there isn’t” is just so philosophically insightful! No, there couldn’t possibly be any other alternative world views beyond that … right?!
Dawkins is basically a Christian, flipped around in the mirror. Isn’t it interesting that the most militant atheists come from the societies with the strongest Christian beliefs. The religion provides the philosophical framework for the atheist belief system, and then all that’s needed is a few defectors to fill the role.
Of all the defections over to The Side of Shut Up Bitches™, MCH is the one that still stings the most.
Dawkins is British, Mark. We might have a state religion, but we are a very secular society and have been for a long time.
Nicely written. Thank you.
@ Mark
Go away.
It’s sad that it needed to be said. But thanks for saying it.
It’s disappointing because Dawkins is admirable in many other ways. Oxford Dons are predominantly male and can lead a closeted existence but you would have thought that Richard was bigger than that.
I’ve heard it argued that the fact that there is a “state religion” causes people to take it less seriously, since being tied to the government makes people ascribe to it the same level of cynicism and suspicion that they usually reserve for the government.
But since I’m not English, I don’t know either way.
Thank you, PZ. It may not mean much, but thank you for being an ally.
It’s interesting that “radical” is apparently a term of abuse, per se. Literally it means somebody who wants to bring about fundamental change. That would seem to be an essential fact about gender equity: it’s a radical change in culture and society. You want to call me radical? Bring it on! (Etymologically, “radix” is Latin for “root.”)
So, to spin the Evolution comparison a little further: Richard says he believes only in Micro-Feminism and PZ points out it’s actually the same thing as Macro-Feminism and nobody uses that distinction anymore?
Seconding Seven of Mine:
Mark, go the fuck away.
That’s exactly what the feminists who originally adopted the nomenclature were thinking, Cervantes. Change it at the root. It’s not enough to just change the laws. You have to change the culture. You have to change the most basic assumptions about who we are, what we do with each other, how we work, how we raise children, how we reproduce, etc.
They were right.
Sorry Hordelings, if Mark has history I was unaware and wouldn’t have responded if known.
I’m sure the latest bullshit to spew from Dawkins’ mouth won’t change the minds of his most devoted followers, but I hope people that are on the fence can see clearly how damaging his remarks are. His comments here, along with his comments about Rape Culture show that he is not an ally of progressives. He is not someone I want to work with. He is not someone I want to break bread with. He is someone that is actively harming the movement. He speaks from his lofty position of privilege and talks down to, and over the masses as if he’s more knowledgeable than they are. It pisses me off that so many people refuse to distance themselves from this asshole, often in the name of he wrote good books. Who gives a motherfuckin’ flying fuck? Yeah, his books were enjoyable. Yes, they helped people realize that religion is bullshit and harmful. But you know what, he stopped being helpful a long time ago. Once he moves outside of his field of scientific expertise or atheism, he shows he is a detriment to the movement.
Dawkins fanpeople, get over your worship of his Holy Taintstain.
embertine: He was in the “I get email” thread in which he waxed idiotic about there being no evidence for evolution until he suddenly remembered he had to pack for a month long vacation in Alaska (I shit you not) and declared he didn’t have time to back his shit up. He’s only here to ride his little anti-atheist hobby horse.
No worries though, it certainly wasn’t clear from his comment. :)
About radical feminists, per Esteleth:
Per myself, radical feminist is more “holy fuck, I’m tired of the same old shit, over and over, and over and over and over. Fuck being polite, fuck assuming if I’m just patient enough, assholes will listen and magically see the light!”
Richard Dawkins:
Dear Richard Dawkins, fuck that noise with bells on. Yes, I used a naughty word, deal. Feminists, regardless of gender, who pay attention when I talk about rape are not patronising me. They are not victimizing me. They are listening. They are acknowledging deeply flawed societal and cultural ideals and actions, and learning how to change those things. You, Prof. Dawkins? You. Are. Not. Helping.
Thanks Seven. That is up there with “my supermodel girlfriend, she lives in Canada that’s why you’ve never met her” as I will take transparent bullshit for $200 please Alex.
This is perfect, PZ. I truly hope Dawkins reads it with seriousness. I think this is the best part:
If that doesn’t stir something in him, then he really may be a hopeless case. I hope not though.
Dawkins was one of the largest voices that led me to atheism. Sort of my guru. I enjoyed his writing and found him to be a witty and compelling speaker. Now, I have no respect left for him. How sad. I will certainly never buy anything of his again.
Thanks PZed for such an eloquent piece of writing. Also for putting feminism into better perspective.
Voyager:
That goes for a lot of people. It’s one of the reasons so many people blindly trust what he says about anything. When it comes to evolution, he’s a very good communicator. When it comes to social justice issues, feminism in particular, the man is a waking nightmare of privilege and stupidity soundbites. This isn’t new, though. Dawkins has been consistently digging that hole from the time he wrote Dear Muslima.
So, whenever a woman talks about her experiences with sexism and/or abuse, a Radical Feminist “patronizes” her by believing her and showing support, while a Sensible Feminist “respects” her by telling her to shut up. Did I get the distinction right?
I know your relationship with Dawkins probably made it difficult and uncomfortable to write that, PZ, kudos for your courage and relentless integrity. May he recognize you as someone who wants to support him, avoid becoming defensive, and instead turn inward and think hard about what you’re saying.
In my (limited) experience, people who use “radical feminist” as the enemy are often the same people who use “social justice warrior” as an epithet. It has nothing to do with the actual movements or goals of those movements, about which the people throwing the terms around are, as Dawkins seems to be, woefully ignorant of reality. But the goal of the rhetorical use of both is to paint anyone who opposes them as extremist and unhinged, with the twin goals of scaring more moderate fence-sitters away from their opponents and ideally forcing the opponent to softpedal and shut up/smile/act nice in order to defuse the accusation of extremism for fear of alienating others, a highly effective derailing tactic.
Doesn’t work so well when people respond, “You’re damn right I’m a radical warrior!” though. No idea if Dawkins is using it in this sense consciously or what, but I’ve seen a certain personality type that uses “social justice warrior” and also only refers to feminists as “radical feminists” (if not “feminazis” which I prefer to see, solely because it makes it easier to identify someone who should be entirely ignored).
There is also a slightly more nuanced attack in the use of “radical feminist,” though I have no idea if Dawkins is doing this. A segment of self-proclaimed “rad fems” are known online as being significantly transphobic, so the accusation of being a radical feminist can imply that the person is an ally of “rad fems”… which again is meant to prompt backpedaling and explaining “I’m not one of THOSE!” which derails the discussion.
Andrés Diplotti @ 22:
You did. Lovely, ennit?
jacobbasson:
It hasn’t worked any of the previous times.
The thing is this is probably one of the least odious things Dawkins has been wrong about in the last fucking day. Yes, we get it Dawkins. Semantic game about “radical” feminists and handwaving to make it seem like you support some form of feminism that you deem proper while somehow also justifying your continued harassment and abuse of feminists. Fucking good show, you fucking wankstain. But that is only minorly irksome. The cherry on top of his shit sundae.
The real issues are these comments:
“The REAL rape culture: ‘All occurrences of sexual intercourse are rape unless there is certified evidence to the contrary.”
“Officer, it’s not my fault I was drunk driving. You see, somebody got me drunk.”
THAT is why Richard Dawkins should be regarded as the fucking scum of the Earth. His sophistry and word games and presumptions in the field of feminism are minor symptoms in comparison.
As for Mark
What’s your sophisticated middle fucking way between “god” and “no god”? Are you preposing a half-god? Quarter god? Multiple gods? God-like or god adjacent beings? Really, god, gods, or no god are the only real options aside from just flat out redefining what “god” means. But that doesn’t really change the viable answers, it just changes the nature of the question.
Thank you PZ. It won’t do a goddamn thing for him, he is a hopeless case apparently taking glee in causing harm, AGAIN. But it needed to be said, as forthrightly and as prominently as you have here.
I was an atheist decades before I knew who Dawkins was. I read The Blind Watchmaker before I knew of Dawkins’ prominence as an atheist voice. Frankly, it wasn’t all that. Haven’t read any of this other books because that one — to me at least — was ‘meh’.
IMO, he turns a nice phrase every once in a while in books that take a long time to prepare and publish and which are turned out under the watchful eye of an editor and publisher.
But time after time after time in settings more immediate than books, he sticks both feet in his mouth and then starts chewing on them when somebody point out he’s committed a faux pas.
He’s a product of his time and his environment. The atheist “movement” — if there is such a thing as the herding of that particular breed of cats — has zoomed past him. His defenders are there because that’s what tribes do. They defend their talismans.
THIS. They might as well just say “FemiNazi.” I think PZ’s analogy with Radical/Militant Atheists is spot on. For many believers and acommodationists atheists are just fine so long as they keep their yaps shut. As soon as they say anything they are Radical/Millitant. That someone like Dawkins can’t see this obvious parallel is sad. It highlights (yet again) the huge blindspot he has on sexism.
Dawkins led me to evolutionary biology and to genetics… fundamentalist Christianity led me to atheism…. And for pete’s sake, Richard, confine yourself to your field of expertise (specifically evolutionary biology and to genetics), ’cause whenever you speak on ANY other subject you exude authoritativeness that you do not have, and you end up with your foot in your mouth.
This is even worse than it seems, because of all those who want to dismiss any rape or sexual assault on the part of someone who didn’t immediately go to the cops and report, and don’t have four independent witnesses to the rape or assault.
Shorter Dawkins: What about the menz?! It’s painful, the depth he has sunk into, and he just keeps digging.
off-topic…..?
I don’t think it is an alternative, actually. Mark proposes to change the subject. We have to consider all possible “world views” that may or may not have anything to do with the simple fucking question of whether or not some particular kind of thing exists. Why do we have to do that right now? Because that’s what Mark wants.
Kevin Kehres @ 29:
Please, Do. Not. Do. This. It’s the worst justification for the shit Dawkins has been saying for the last several years. There are regulars here who are in Dawkins’s age group, and they are not oblivious asses. There are regulars here who share his environment, and are not oblivious asses. I’m 56.5, and I’m not stuck on what was happening with feminism back in the late ’60s and early ’70s. (That does inform my experience, but it certainly hasn’t prevented progressing in any way.)
When you fall back on the “oh, product of…”, you’re basically saying that people are incapable of learning, that there’s simply no way to raise their consciousness or that they are incapable of being aware of things like privilege. None of that is true, and you’re not only handwaving an actual choice on Dawkins’s part, you’re running with the assumption that as people age, they are incapable of change. Don’t do that.
Watching Dawkins use Twitter to communicate is like watching a trained mechanic try to change a flat tire using a jackhammer. After awhile, you have to start wondering not just about the choice of tool, but about the competence of the individual wielding it.
****
On the off-topic discussion–I suspect Mark was waffle that ‘god’ vs. ‘no god’ doesn’t include other supernatural belief systems. Fine, we’ll expand it to “either the supernatural exists or it does not”. Any sort of non-interventionist deity would fall into the former category, and so could be eliminated by the more general rule.
I don’t believe this is mentionedt , but the term radiacal i this context, derives for root , the explains the social differences between men and women is due the patriarchy and the social structures that it has implemented to keep male supremacy working, similar to the class structure in socialism, which probably is why, at least in my country, former communists very easy to adhers to this theory.
@34: How about “ossified product of his time and environment”?
Better?
Yes, I agree people of his age can and do change…FWIW, I’m older than you and come from a background of white privilege (but not upper-class Oxford don privilege), and I agree with none of what Dawkins has to say vis-a-vis feminism.
I do see him stuck in that era where his voice was authoritative by virtue of his many privileges. And he’s flailing about, not understanding why that isn’t the case anymore. His environment forged him yard by yard and link by link, and he’ll be damned if he’s going to listen to any of the ghosts flying around him telling him he’s wrong. It’s a heavy, ponderous chain.
When I hear “radical feminism” I think “Hothead Paisan on a meth bender,” not what was described in the OP. THAT is plain old human decency.
Is there something about old white men that just causes some kind of empathy deficit? Is it a scientist thing? Hope not, as I’ve got a geology BA…
Hmm, do I detect an analogy here?
When African-Americans are murdered by police officers or wanna-be police officers, and people express their, umm, *disapproval*, the right-wing media response is “You’re playing the race card! You’re patronizing black people as victims!”
When men oppress women, and people express their disapproval, that’s playing the horrid feminism card, disrespecting and patronizing women. Impeccable reasoning, Dawkins, and, nice company you’re keeping in it.
Why do these things spring to mind?
With apologies to Professor Richard Dawkins.
With apologies to Epicurus
Louis
Kevin Kehres:
Yes. That is, however, an active choice on his part, not “being a product of his time”. Dawkins is fond of his privilege in life, and he does not want to give it up, in any way. It’s sad, and it’s rendering him irrelevant to those who choose to be progressive. Unfortunately, he’s become the go to guy for every asshat hanging in the atheoskeptisphere. I think Dawkins is aware (at least somewhat) of the damage he’s causing, but he also thinks that it’s damn near criminal that people want to waste their time over all this “oh, women” business.
Kevin Kehres, as a living member of the human race, Dawkins’ time is now, and his environment is here.
If his past environment forged for him a chain, his current environment has plopped a blowtorch right in front of him. But instead of using that blowtorch to free his shackles, he has chosen to blast it at others.
He is not, nor is any human, a “product of his time”.
He is, as is every other human, a product of his choices.
Not really. Human beings may have bones, but they are not just bones.
And living bones remodel themselves continuously….
Amphiox:
This is a beautifully phrased bit of brevity. Thank you.
Co-signed, PZ. He needs to shut his noise hole and listen to his moral betters, which is an ever-increasing group.
Kevin Kehres @ 37:
This is not true at all. Dawkins is fully aware. I don’t know if you were around during Egate, but I (like a lot of the regulars here) was there when Dawkins offered up his Dear Muslima, as well as when Dawkins said he might consider another point of view, if people would respond to him in thread with no naughty words.* After many people complied, he handwaved them all with a sniffy dismissal. As far as Dawkins is concerned, he thinks everything is dandy for western women, and because he can’t be arsed to change his thinking, he doesn’t think anyone else should be so arsed either. Another thing – Dawkins has discovered that he has all kinds of people willing to stroke his ego for be a public asshole. He’s made it clear he quite likes that.
*And in that, it’s clear that Dawkins loves his privilege, and feels that people should automatically obey his dictats. I’m a control freak myself, and I recognize one when I see them.
@ Kevin Kehres
How many times does Dawkins have to do this before people will stop trying to excuse him as some poor, bewildered old man who can’t figure out why people don’t seem to be as much in his thrall anymore?
He does this On. Fucking. Purpose. It’s a pattern. He makes an inflammatory tweet, the criticism rolls in, he retreats to his blog to wax passive aggressively at his attackers, waits a week or two and then repeats the process. He is not fucking confused. He knows exactly what he’s doing.
@42: Ain’t all that easy when you’re the “leader of the atheist movement” (or whatever) and thousands of sycophants rush to defend your every utterance. He believes his own PR, because nobody that he listens to will tell him that the emperor has no clothes. In fact, sadly enough, those people actually think he does have fine raiment. And they tell him so every minute of every hour of every day. His Twitter feed, I would suspect, is filled with admiration for his fine clothes.
His current environment — the one he chooses and that has chosen him — is fine with what he says and does. Remember, he’s not over here — he’s over there. Where the chains are being forged. Blowtorch? What blowtorch?
Gad, egregious mixing of literary metaphors. Must be low on caffeine.
Us lowlies have it much easier. Nobody hangs on our every word.
Bottom line: Don’t expect an epiphany from him,or even a slow realization. Too many people would agree that the moon is made of green cheese if he said so. And he’d be proud that he thought of it.
Perhaps counter to what appears to be the prevailing direction of comment (ZOMG I’LL GET FLAMED LOL)* I have no problem with partially explaining Dawkins’ behaviour as a factor of his “environment” and “history”, I.e. As a “product” of some social circumstances. It’s true for all of us after all. His privilege blindness will be in part due to the fact that he is able to be blind given his social context. I don’t think that excuses a thing, I don’t think it’s a particularly trenchant analysis in this case, or even spectacularly relevant, because, as so eloquently put by Amphiox, in this instance he is exercising a lot of “choice”.
If he were some first blush debutant, unused to reading, or subtlety, or nuance, or hell, just Twitter, I might….might….be more inclined to offer socially derived cluelessness/environmental product as a larger percentage of the explanation. As it stands? This is not this particular cowboy’s first rodeo. He’s got plenty of form in the area. The pattern, it isn’t doubtful.
Louis
*obvious joke is obvious.
On the topic of feminism, think of Dawkins as not analogous to a Dunning-Kruger afflicted fundagelical, or even to a naive tween straight out of Sunday School. Think of Dawkins as analogous to a slick media personality that “doesn’t believe in” climate change and just happens to get cut an occasional nice little check from Big Oil. That is what Dawkins is. He is not ignorant, he is not uninformed or misinformed. He is a denialist. He is the misinformer. His plausible deniability window has well passed at this point. Do not be mistaken. He is not genuinely mistaken at this point. Every last “mistake” is an active choice, a choice based upon motives, and with motives revealed based on consistent behavior and consistent dismissal of facts, logic, and concerns for his fellow human beings.
You know, the wonderful thing about RD is what an excellent bad example he is. When I first heard him speak in that marvelous British accent about evolution and science with such intelligence and wit, I really became a fan. And now, to see him time and time again say such ignorant things, get called out for it, seem to appear that he is about to ‘get it’, then snap back to his original position like a rubber band – he really is the poster child for privileged antifeminism, isn’t he?
I think he deserves to be memorialized for this. Like Spooner lent his name to spoonerisms, and De Sade lent his name to sadists, i think any time someone conjures up a straw feminist we should call them a ‘dawkins’. As in, “Jaclyn Glenn is a smart young woman who sometimes says good things about atheism, but, sheesh, she is such a dawkins!”
Like all measurement standards, we don’t want to use one that is not reliable over a long time span. Fortunately, RD has proven himself to be utterly impervious to any attempts to alter his antifeminism, so I think the ‘dawkins’ will prove to be a very useful concept for decades to come.
@48: Really? Do you think he wants to be inflammatory in this way? On this subject?
I was defaulting to incompetence over conspiracy. Hanlon’s razor?
But you could be right — which, of course makes it much, much worse. And harder to remediate. Again, glad he was never one of my “heroes”.
Anteprepro:
Dawkins also likes attention. A lot of attention, attention which strokes his ego and confirms his confidence in his own intelligence. He now auto-dismisses any disagreement, and only engages through passive aggressive actions, like he did here.
Kevin Kehres @ 53
First, if you must use ‘nym OR comment number will you please use ‘nyms? Especially if you’re not going to quote. People don’t recognize themselves in fucking numbers.
Again, how fucking many times does he have to do it? He’s been doing this for what? 3 years now? And it’s always the same pattern. Yes. I really think he wants to be inflammatory in this way, on this subject.
If Dawkins hadn’t already broken Hanlon’s razor on these subjects WELL before now, he would have broken it again twice over during this summer alone. “Stupidity” is no longer the simplest explanation. He is doing it for the lulz. Dawkins might as well become the fucking mascot for 4chan at this point.
Kevin Kehres:
YES. Are you not paying attention to what people are telling you? About his deliberate actions with Dear Muslima and the rest? Dawkins may be many things, but I don’t think you get to dump him in the “oh, incompetent old dude” category, just so things are more comfortable for you.
Really, Dawkins IS the perfect fit for 4chan now that I think about. Sexist pseudointellectual clods who think causing outrage and disgust is a form of humor, slacktivists who don’t actually want to change anything but like to find a way that they are Better, usually by adopting some random iconoclastic ideas that they don’t really care too much aside from making them seem Edgy. they all tend to skew white, straight, male, and atheist. The common apologia for pedophilia is icing on the cake.
Kevin Kehres,
I’m practically bending over double backwards with extra backwards hoping my “hero” (heavily qualified descriptor, as for all “heroes”) isn’t being a purblind, wilfully obtuse, quite probably deliberately harmful piece of shit on this issue, and even I think this is deliberate baiting without regard for facts or consequences on his part. At a bare minimum. He has so much form, so much opportunity to correct himself, so much information available to him from willing, friendly sources, I’d put my mortgage on the fact he’s doing this for “reasons”. Whatever the fuck they are. They sure as hell aren’t remotely in touch with reality.
Louis
Thanks, PZ
+++
Shorter Dawkins: Real feminists are those who agree with me.
My opinion on Dawkins: Even if everything he said so far was just some Big Misunderstanding and he comes forth with the most resplendent Real Apology in the fucking world, it wouldn’t matter. He has been far too much of an asshole for far too long and virtually no explanation that doesn’t involve magic would really make it so that he comes off like he does while Actually Sincerely Truly being a decent person this whole time, in disguise. No, he’s had his chance. From me, the most he could expect is that I don’t view him as a vile piece of shit if he has a sudden change of heart and mends his ways. Even then, at best, he would just be nothing to me. Instead of being the odious and arrogant asshole with way too much influence that he is now to me. And instead of being the halfway decent science and atheism popularizer that he once was to me, a meager status that I don’t think he will ever again regain in my eyes.
Iyéska @57: Has nothing to do with “comfort” or “discomfort”. I’ve said twice in this thread I’m not a fan and never have been.
But maybe I have been giving him the “out” of merely being out of touch. Uninformed rather than malign. Maybe I’m influenced by the appearance and the quiet demeanor; even though I’m not shy about disagreeing with what he says.
You’re right: Malign would seem to fit the evidence. Which is way more troublesome and much more difficult to deal with. Especially since he does still wield considerable influence. No easy fixes, no magic words.
Echoing the comments of those who are saying that Dawkins knows exactly what he’s doing. The outrage and hurt his comments provoke aren’t a bug, they’re a feature. To him, they’re a sign that he’s doing something right, questioning sacred cows and standing up to dogma and all that.
@59 Louis: Nice strawman. You might want to stand back before it catches fire.
Please kindly when discussing my opinions stick to the things I say, and not the things you are trying to shoehorn me into saying.
Thanks so much.
Richard Dawkins is a product of his time and environment, because we all are. But our time and environment, while we still breathe, includes the here and now. We all need to keep observing and learning. The great tragedy here is that Dawkins has shown no signs of growing or learning for quite a few years now (at least since “Dear Muslima”). Many kudos to PZ for saying here what needs to be said, in a language in which Dawkins should be able to hear and understand.
This culture of blind anti-feminism reminds me of nothing so much as the way so many people (including SCOTUS) want to pretend that racism no longer exists in America (and will likely refuse to learn from the events of the past month or so). I don’t think Dawkins is an active rape apologist (or at least he doesn’t see himself as such), but I do think he would like to pretend that he and the culture he inhabits is beyond any such concerns. It is akin to what Steven Colbert spoofs (in a trope that is getting old, and I hope he drops when he moves to network late-night TV) when he says “I don’t see race. People tell me I’m white, and I believe them, because [insert topically humorous pretended cluelessness here]”.
What Dawkins seems to be saying is “I don’t see gender (or gender discrimination, or rape culture). People tell me I’m male (and so should properly be unconcerned with all of that), and I believe them [because …?]”.
The problem is that, in this case, it is not pretended cluelessness, but actual cluelessness. And while he may have a lifetime of lessons contributing to that attitude, it’s high time he listened to some other voices.
Crikey, Kevin, what strawman would that be? I was agreeing with other people’s sentiments, the sentiments expressed in your #49, not attacking you! Dear FSM, comments re: heroes etc are reflective of my own discomfort (not that there’s much left tbh), not projection about yours. How about you read for comprehension yourself, old bean?
Louis
@ Kevin and Louis ( + the rest commenting at Kevin). I actually am at a low point in expecting decency out of people – some mind-blowingly…. dysfunctional human experiences ballooning around me this week. I’m regularly reading FTB weekly and have been for about 3 yrs. I ONLY became aware of Dawkins via elevatorgate, then remembered friends who were impressed by “The Selfish Gene”. I don’t hear about him in any other media except in rape-related comments.
Think about that for a second. I am totes a theist, and even my church doesn’t mention the guy by name (atheism only comes up about once every 2-3 yrs.) So the only media he seems to have mentions in is in blogs i read, twitstorms he generates. From my day-to-day experience, all i see is him being a jackmonkey about feminism and rape.
I am going to agree that he is getting some some visceral payback out of his commentary on rape. I think it’s getting deliberate (if it wasn’t before). I think that he is increasing his discussion (such as it is on Twitter) on this because he can’t Not. I think he’s either enjoying the genesis or enjoying the response. (admittedly loose usage on ‘enjoying’ here.)
$.02 contributed.
Well said, PZ. I’m horrified.
This ^ How can Dawkins be so blind?
Brilliant letter, PZ. I hope he reads it and I hope he considers the contents.
Kevin Kehres:
Y’know, I’ve heard PZ speak (on video, not in person, unfortunately), and he has a mild, approachable demeanor and a quiet speaking voice. Yet, half of the people in the atheoskeptisphere are ready to christen him Lucifer and call him evil.
There is, I think, still a conditional response on the part of Americans to go all giddy and respectful over old school tie, but that sure as hell should not stop someone from thinking through the substance of what Dawkins says, or his actions.
Dawkins is most certainly not out of touch, nor is he uninformed. He sees what he wants to see, hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest. He’s determined to get out one message: I am Richard Dawkins, Master of Logic, and If You Don’t Logic Like I Do, You’re Wrong.
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2014/08/10/richard-dawkins-still-doesnt-get-it/
Why why why?
I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, please stop
The money quote: ‘And over time, “No! I’ve never seen that!” has slowly transformed into “How could I be so blind?” and eventually, “What can we do to change this? My consciousness was raised. ”’
PZ, this is EXACTLY the dividing line. Aging pudgy white (formerly) Christian heterosexual Industrialized World men of privilege can ABSOLUTELY learn new tricks as old dogs. I dropped the F and D gender words around 1985. I dropped euphemisms (“light in the loafers”, “Dining At The Y”) around 1992. My father stopped using the N word around 1968. My mother stopped the F word shortly after I shouted at her to do so, and by the mid-90s had stopped using stage-y shorthands for “gay”, and simply referred to gay friends as gay, and perhaps, by her death, as no differentiation required at all, when discussing them. Simply “my friend Gabriel”.
And then we all have the uncles who refuse to evolve. We’re embarrassed by them. We’ve been embarrassed by them since the 70s. Mostly they’re dead now.
Why does Dawkins want to be THAT uncle? “Culture of Victimization” and “Political Correctness” are two of the most corrosively misleading phrases in our common lexicon. “Stop being a dick to people like me” is the most valid form of political discourse that the world has ever known. Dawkins should be smart enough to realize that, and stop pissing on it.
Otherwise…..he’s THAT uncle.
screechymonkey @ 63:
Emphasized and Quoted For Truth.
Seven @ 55
Totally agree, it’s clear now that this isn’t a simple case of repeated, ignorant tone deafness. This is his tune. It’s always been his tune and he’s playing it over and over again.
Scientismist @65:
Does it matter if his rape apologia is active or passive?
s3m3rs @ 67, thank you for your perspective. I hope people pay attention to it.
Scientismist:
Oh, the fuck it is! Dawkins is fully aware of what he’s doing. FFS, stop making excuses for him.
@70 Iyeska — oh man, I hadn’t seen that thigh-slapper when I posted. “I promise you, I am not exaggerating”?
Comedy gold! Amirite???
As someone who has zero emotional connection with Dawkins’ writings, I’d like to say I’m seeing next to no difference between him and thunderf00t.
anbheal:
We’re all laughing ourselves silly, right? Um, Bueller?
I think a lot of people aren’t even close to aware of all the shit Dawkins has put out on the ‘net, and that he continues to do so, with apparent glee.
@78 vaiyt
The difference lies solely in the quality of work prior to everyone learning about the intellectual rot festering within.
Dawkins wrote good books on evolution. Thunderf00t made some semi-clever videos where he mostly took on kids on YouTube. They’re both in roughly the same place now, though.
@Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm #48:
Dunno; how long have nominal Lefties been excusing Obama’s corporatism, war crimes, and illegal surveillance programs at this point? Five-plus years? At least that long.
@Louis #50: I certainly agree with this, but then I also tend pretty heavily toward the constructivist perspective on everything. Many people seem to have an odd tendency to conflate the meanings of “explicable” or “understandable” with “not problematic”. Knowing (at least part of) why Dawkins acts as he does in no way makes his behavior any less harmful or less worthy of repudiation. Yeah, he’s largely a product of his time and positionality, and that product is apparently an unrepentant, self-important, willfully-ignorant, privilege-loving asshole.
@76 Iyeska — I’m inclined to agree. So did all those embarrassing uncles. I see it among some nativists I know who say “kweh-sah-dilla” and “Doss ECK-wuss”. They’ve heard the term quesadilla and Dos Equis since the mid-1980s, but damned if they’ll ever use Spanish pronunciation in the Good Ole US of A. It’s the same as THAT uncle who proudly used the N word into his dotage. They absolutely know that they’re in error, but they want to show that they have the Big White Balls to make the error and get away with it.
The technical term is Asshole.
@Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm #55:
Indeed; Alex even made a handy chart.
anbheal @ 82:
Yes. I’ve rapidly reached a point where I seriously resent people excusing him due to his age. That gets a fuck that noise with bells on from me. At 56.5, I’m not ancient, but I do not expect people to give me some sort of “get out of idiocy free” card because of it, nor will I expect or want that as I get older. If I’m wrong, then I’m wrong, and I can manage to accept that and go from there. If I am wrong, or sitting back and resting on my privilege, I expect people to call me out on it. We can’t always be aware of every little bias swimming in our brains, so yes, I do depend on other people to metaphorically smack me upside the head when I screw up.
John @ 83:
Oh, I had forgotten about that! Thank you for linking, I have it bookmarked now.
John Horstman,
Oh yes! I’d certainly agree that knowing explanations doesn’t lend itself to excuses or exculpation. It’s the is/ought problem. The fact that X is a driving drunk in part explains why X crashed into a tree says nothing about whether X crashing into a tree is “good” or otherwise.
Explanations of Dawkins’ behaviour are useful for predicting future behaviour. Maybe. They’re useful for anyone who wants to see if he can be reached with reason, see endless wrangles over “tactics” for dealing with creationists etc for reference. They’re even nice for good ol’ Ivory Towerin’ should such wickedness be needed.
But, as has been well noted all over, he’s not a neophyte. His history on these issues has demonstrated a callousness that is very, very hard even with very motivated reasoning on my part to attribute to anything innocent. The best case scenario I can conceive of is that he likes the ego stroking he gets from supposedly “rational” anti-feminists, or at least is sufficiently hardened to criticism that it’s indistinguishable, and as such is for reasons that are utterly beyond me, letting himself be deceived. All without the faintest regard for consequences or facts. And that’s pretty damning for a best case.
Arsehole is way too generous given the pattern.
Louis
@doubtthat:
He started out by tackling down creationism, and the sense of intellectual superiority that comes from debating stupid people got to his head. Just like thunderf00t.
Good books on evolution? I had some – they were called “regular fucking textbooks” in places not bothered by the religious political lobby. Dawkins wouldn’t be this be-all end-all if he didn’t have the idiocy of creationists for his foil.
@anbheal
I have one of those uncles. He’s immune to appeals to a shared humanity – he outright cheers on oppression (one time, he said everyone in Iraq deserved to die because “it’s a shithole, they don’t amount to anything”), and acts like a controlling git towards his immediate family.
@John Horstman:
That’s a very common conflation. How many works of fiction in recent memory do you know that try using a flashback to drum up sympathy to a character that does bad things, as if just knowing where they come from is enough to excuse their actions? I have read too many to count.
@87 vaiyt
Look, I understand your position on Dawkins and I think you’re right about why he has the attitude he does, and it’s not like there are no other resources for learning about evolution. I will, however, defend the quality of his earlier work. They are well written, clear compilations of the best science on the subject.
It isn’t just the opposition, as the work is excellent in its own right. He’s moving into the Kipling-Wagner category (placing him by type, if not by similar quality): made some good stuff and then seemed to dedicate their lives to having everyone ignore the good stuff because they were such fucking assholes.
Please don’t read this as me trying to convince you to go look at Dawkins better work. It’s not like you need it. The only point is that he was a more legitimate figure than Thunderf00t ever was. That doesn’t mean a whole lot now.
@ 87 – Vaiyt – This rings true to me. The idea of “Creationsists as his foil”. It continues to confuse me how they use obviously vacuous analogies and downwright shitty thinking to bolster their stances. Referring to TFoot and Dawkins. Much like Ben Carson, the Fox News retired Neurosurgeon who believes evolution is a myth, I’m stupified that these people can think so clearly in one area and so shamefully sloppily in another ….
Scientismist (#65)
No rape apologist ever sees himself as such, so it’s useless to consider self-identification. And Dawkins is plenty active.
Re the “Dawkins is a product of his time, what can you expect?” argument:
More. I expect better of him.
Awhile back, I had an exchange on Twitter who was talking about elderly (70+) people who are homophobic. I tweeted that my octogenarian grandmother regularly donates to HRC and PFLAG, so what’s those other old people’s excuse?
Plenty of people who are in their 70s (Dawkins is 73) manage to not be slimy misogynists. What’s his excuse?
Louis @ 59:
Yeah, that is what I meant by “..[because …?]”. I had originally put in there a suggestion that it might have something to do with the fact that he preferred to think of what happened to himself as a child as “mild touching up” and “mild pedophilia”, but I thought that might be getting too personal and too much like amateur psychology to bring up. But I really think there may be some cognitive dissonance there, as he’s invested most of a lifetime in making excuses for the poor sod that couldn’t keep his hands off of the boys and then gassed himself. He can’t now take what he thinks of as “mild” sexual improprieties (in either pedophilia or rape culture) as violations of real and serious boundaries that are worthy of defending as a part of our culture, without thinking badly of himself for his own dismissal of it for all these years.
There. I went there. That, IMHO, is the psychological elephant in the room that I am in no way qualified to dissect.
There are a lot of folks here who think RD is doing this deliberately for the lulz, or for the notoriety, or so he can ROFL or something. I don’t buy it (and neither does PZ, I think, or else he wouldn’t have gone to the effort that he did in his OP to write something that just might get through to RD).
Tony! The Queer Shoop @ 74:
Yes, it does — if PZ can get through to him. It’s like the difference between Ray Comfort and my Mom, who tried not to think about the fact that her son was a biologist whose work required taking evolution seriously. My Mom (who said maybe my ancestors were monkeys, but not hers) didn’t try to get me to leave grad school and attend a seminary. She solved the problem by just listening to my descriptions of my research while my Dad commented and learned something. Similarly, RD needs to learn when to be quiet. Neither my Mom nor I consigned the other to the trash heap, and Dawkins doesn’t deserve the dismissal that he is unfortunately earning for himself (and will richly deserve if he continues as he has).
Iyéska @ 76 says I should “stop making excuses for him.” I’m not making excuses. I’m suggesting that, if he continues to prattle on, and ignores or dismisses PZ’s comments, he probably ought to seek out some therapy. Seriously.
Also:
I’ve seen argued at various points that Dawkins is showing signs of early-stage dementia. I do not agree with this opinion. Firstly, I abhor the notion that a group of armchair psychologists can diagnose anyone with anything from a distance, and secondly, Dawkins shooting his mouth off is (1) completely in character with his conduct for the past 30 years and (2) not a symptom of dementia in any case.
Having an existing friendship with Dawkins, this must have been hard for PZ to write, but it really needed to be said. I hope that Dawkins will listen and take the long hard look at his life, value system and priorities that he desperately needs to, even though I don’t think it likely that he will give his prior behaviour.
Even if Dawkins is too far gone to be reasoned with, it is still important that other prominent figures with the atheist movement, like PZ, are prepared to call him on his rape aplogia, misrepresentation of feminism, and general misogyny. That at least shows that Dawkin’s position is not the only stance within atheo-skepticism on issues like feminism.
There are radical feminists. They call themselves Rad Fem and they are very transphobic. They are of course by no means mainstream and no one who criticizes Dawkins on feminism is one.
To clarify my post @ 94, when I mentioned Dawkins being ‘too far gone to be reasoned with’, I meant too mired in a misogynistic discourse and too in love with the sound of his own pontificating to pay any real atention to the logical and evidentiary force of feminist arguments. It was not intended as a dementia jibe such as that which Esteleth is Groot was critiquing @ 93.
Apologies for that failure to communicate effectively.
scientismist @92:
He’s ignored the advice of everyone prior to this. Why would this time be any different? Seriously, think of Dear Muslima (which he finally got around to apologizing for-however poor that apology was-a few months ago).
Think of his comments in The God Delusion about child sexual abuse not being as bad as indoctrination of children into theistic systems of belief.
Think about his comments about date rape not being as bad as stranger rape at knifepoint.
Think about his comments about how immoral it would be to bring a child with Down’s Syndrome into the world.
He’s been saying offensive shit for years and years, and has almost never listened to his critics, which have included PZ. I see no reason he’s going to listen this time.
Also, your comment about therapy is predicated on an assumption of possible mental illness on the part of Dawkins. Please don’t do that.
Scientismist @ 92:
You are not paying attention. PZ has tried, repeatedly, to get through to Dawkins. As per his usual behaviour, Dawkins dismisses PZ’s attempts, same as everyone else. Look, if you want to play ostrich with their head in the sand, go right ahead, just don’t be doing it on this thread, with people who have been dealing with the damage Dawkins has been doing for years.
Also, don’t be playing armchair psychiatrist in regard to the sexual assault that happened to Dawkins. He himself has made it very clear that he felt it wasn’t terribly bothersome, and had no lasting effect on him. While you might personally disagree, you don’t get to delineate that experience for him. Only Dawkins gets to do that. You are seriously reaching in your attempt to somehow justify his rape apologia. Stop that.
Gregory Greenwood @96:
I thought your comment @94 was perfectly fine and quite clear (I got a chuckle out of you thinking it wasn’t clear, as I don’t think I’ve read anything from you that wasn’t clear and concise; I’m sure it’s possible, but from you? Unlikely.)
Scientismist:
Yes, you are making excuses. And lose that fucking therapy response. Really. You’re in a deep hole right now. My advice is to stop fucking digging.
bricewgilbert:
Aauuggh, NO. Some radfems are TERF, however, they do not define all radical feminists. See my post @ 17. This demonstrates why one should read the damn thread first.
I think knowing a person’s background is at least useful for gauging the amount of personal depravity, as opposed to just complacency, required for them to hold the views they hold.
Like, for a man of Dawkins’ background to be privileged and confused by feminism is what you’d expect, it’s the default for his upbringing and environment. It’d be a (small) moral achievement if he wasn’t. A younger, less wealthy and sheltered person with the same opinions would be a bigger asshole, the way I look at it. The same way I don’t get up and walk away when my granddad gets confused and calls muslims “islams” or whatever.
That doesn’t make his dumb comments less wrong, or less harmful given his prominent position. But it did mean my reaction was more “ah well, what did I expect really” than outrage.
Tony:
Think about the direct fucking quote from Dawkins posted @ 70:
Now posted again. Emphasis mine. Anyone charging in who wants to defend Dawkins, go back to post #70, click the links, and do some damn reading. You can at least be somewhat aware of a tiny bit of the crap Dawkins has been spreading all over.
So his complaint in the “Real rape culture” tweet is that all a woman has to do is say she was raped and people will believe her and the complaint in the “someone got me drunk’ tweet was “Even if she’s drunk”?
Did he really just compare being raped while incapacitated to driving while drunk? So owning a vagina is like driving a car? (I know it’s more like someone getting you black out drunk, putting you in the car, putting a brick on the gas and then claiming you decided to get behind the wheel drunk. But let’s just go with Dawkins version anyway.) I thought having a penis was like driving a car and having a vagina was like wandering onto a busy highway? I hate both analogies, but at least in the “wandering into traffic” analogy I get to be a human being. It’s scary how often misogynists compare vaginas to objects that are owned and not a part of the human body. We’re houses being broken into or cars being driven wrecklessly. We are wallets left in unlocked cars. We’re “pieces of meat” dangled before hungry animals. Why are analogies even necessary? Why can’t they just say exactly what they mean? It’s almost like it is so awful that they can’t bring themselves to just say it.
Zeppelin:
Oh for Chrissakes, he is not confused. Read the godsdamn thread first.
Jackie:
Yep. It’s our fault. Again. Always. Y’know, Dawkins is really starting to sound like Paul W in the NYT rape thread, comparing us to just about every object he could think of, but we were never human beings in his scenarios.
Zeppelin @ 101
Richard Fucking Dawkins was not placed in a fucking stasis chamber at the age of 21 and just released today. He exists in the same fucking reality as all the rest of us. He has access to the entire fucking internet and thus pretty much the entirety of human knowledge, just like all the rest of us. This is sheer, unadulterated bullshit. Knock it the fuck off.
The clever men at Oxford
Know all that there is to be knowed.
But they none of them knew one half as much
As intelligent Mr Toad!
—Kenneth Grahame, The Wind in the Willows, published 1908
It’s perfectly possible to escape Oxford; I did, and I’m only 8 years younger than Dawkins. But you have to want to. You have to look around and actually see the blatant prejudices that dominate the culture there. Not just misogyny (but we let women in now), not just racism (and we have a black friend), not just classism (some of those people are really quite intelligent), but a general belief in superiority that — spoiler alert — is not justified intellectually, let alone in the requirements for being a decent human being. The academic way of Oxford is by and large and across disciplines narrow, essentially reductionist, and frequently fails when confronted with real-world problems.
But to those cosseted by the privilege the University affords, it’s extremely comfortable. As long as you are willing to be blind. How Dawkins can have been venturing out into the wider world for several decades now and not seen either the world outside or the university itself for anything remotely comparable to what they are … I have very little idea. But it speaks extremely badly of him.
PZ, thanks for trying. But he’s an asshole. Doesn’t deserve any more of my time, or yours.
Remember back when journalists routinely described Dawkins as “strident and shrill”, no matter how pleasant and smiley he tried to be? Perception overrode reality: it didn’t matter that he phrased his arguments respectfully – criticism of faith , and the attempt to undermine religious privilege, was read as aggressive. Because that’s how Dawkins and his fan club react to feminism. It makes no difference what feminists say or how they say it. They get read as hysterical, unreasonable, wallowing in victimhood.
Iyéska:
But I have read it, and I disagree! I do think he’s confused — or doesn’t understand and refuses to consider and is descending deeper into dumb justification behaviour, rather. He’s giving us exactly the kinds of tortured analogies and arguments you’d expect from a person struggling to reduce cognitive dissonance and maintain his world view. That’s also why he keeps on doing it.
Just to be clear, again, I’m not saying his behaviour is okay, I’m just saying it’s basically what you’d expect.
Pete Shanks @ 107:
In a nutshell. That was a terrific post, Pete, thank you very much for taking the time to write.
Seven of Mine:
…I disagree, but thanks for your input.
Zeppelin:
You disagree with what? That Dawkins exists in the same reality with others of us who manage to not be callous assholes to and about women? That Dawkins has the same access to all the same information that all the rest of us have? That Dawkins hasn’t been sheltered or in any way prevented from learning this shit before he runs his mouth about it? What exactly do you disagree with?
Zeppelin:
“Oh, he’s a confused old man who can’t think his way out of a wet paper bag! Boo hoo!” Bullshit. Absolute Fucking Bullshit. There’s no cognitive dissonance, there’s no excusing what he’s doing. He enjoys his privilege, he doesn’t want it challenged, so he ‘defends’ it. He’s also well aware of all the arse-licking and praise he’s getting from the misogyny contingent, and he’s fine with that.
Sure, “product of his time.” He’s a decade younger than my mother, and a dozen years younger than Martin Luther King, Jr., would be were he still alive. Dawkins is clearly paying attention to the world outside his study; those objectionable tweets are reactions to things that are happening right now, as well as involving current technology.
There is no excuse for someone claiming to be an intellectual leader and refusing to think or take in new information. Sure, he’s in his 70s, and if he wanted to retire, read novels, and maybe take up fishing or gardening, that would be cool. But he isn’t retiring, he’s staying engaged with the world, and commenting on political issues. If he’s going to do that, his remarks are open to criticism, and “oh, he’s old” doesn’t justify them. This isn’t a harmless difference like preferring music from his youth, or not wanting to try a new cuisine.
Vicki @ 114:
Yep. Dawkins views himself as a staunch defender of the status quo, as he doesn’t think there’s much wrong with it. That’s a conscious view, and a deliberate choice.
Zeppelin @111:
So you’re saying we should expect other people of Dawkins’ background to be privileged and confused by feminism? Please read Pete Shanks’ comment @107.
To the Defenders:
Dawkins says what he says because he believes it.
He is old but he is not confused or locked in the past.
He has a highly trained intellect and these are his thoroughly reasoned opinions.
Think about that.
Oh look, RD is still a member in good standing of the good ol’ boys club. Such a brave warrior ! Look how he creates shitstorms. We should all be in awe of his amazing shit-flinging abilities. /spits Rather than give him any more attention for being an unrepentant sexist asshole who is fighting against equality I will leave a link to someone who is actually doing something rather remarkable. Emma Sulkowitz
Iyéska: Exactly!
He enjoys his privilege, and like everyone he wants to think of himself as an essentially good person. So he’s trying to defend his privilege when people point out injustices, but then people point out to him that THAT’s bullshit, and he lacks the strength of character to consider their arguments and change his views, but he’s still being told he’s a bad person by people he previously considered to be “on his side”, so he has to explain that away somehow. That’s what cognitive dissonance *is*.
And then he gets snide and angry and starts lecturing when people are somehow not cowed by his intellectual prowess, and that draws more assholes to his support because now they’ve got Richard Dawkins on their side, so now he gets an echo chamber online as well as in his professional life. So his arguments get even worse, rinse, repeat.
Again again, I’m not saying he’s not being an asshole, I’m just saying he’s being an asshole in a very mundane, typical fashion in exactly the kind of way you’d expect from a man of his background. So to me he’s less of a villain and more pathetic.
Extremist feminists exist, but radical ≠ extremist. Not unless you’re looking at it from the perspective of someone really empowered by and/or invested in the status quo. Radical just means one believes in the need for reform from the ground up rather than believing only in spot reforms to an existing foundation.
Also, pretending Dawkins is confused or ignorant erases all the work people have done to try to explain to him why he is wrong. Every fucking time he pulls this shit, people flock to educate him, and he just throws a snit fit and calls them the overwrought, witch-hunting thought police of the Victimhood Inquisition or whatever.
He’s actively defending himself against being corrected.
Zeppelin:
Ugh. Y’know, I’m not going to bother anymore. Fuck you, fuck your idiotic excuses, and fuck the ageist horse you’re riding. Altogether, just fuck off.
If we’ve learned anything from the shitstorm, it’s that this is not a function of age. There are plenty of young people who are more than willing to jump on this particular bandwagon.
I get it. I used to be pretty damn creepy when I was young. Then I got exposed to nasty feminism and got some very rude shocks. I ended with choice between accepting responsibility for my behavior — and changing it — or clapping my hands over my ears and trying to make it all go away. Self-examination is hard*.
So, yeah, what Pete Shanks said. You have to want to change. You have to want to learn.
* Note that by saying change is hard, I am not at all trying to condone the behavior of Dawkins and bandwagon. Continuing to deliberately cause harm just because you refuse to engage with unpleasant truths is despicable.
Note: I mean he’s not just fighting against having to change his own mind but against anyone convincing others that he has no fucking idea what he’s talking about.
Zeppelin
He’s not defending his privilege against people pointing out injustices to him. He is making inflammatory comments completely unprovoked. He is shit stirring on purpose. Then, typically he retreats back to his blog where he writes an overlong passive-aggressive not-pology before doing it all again a few weeks later. Over and over and over he does this. He is not surprised by these reactions; he is fucking courting them.
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/510314159503065088
This is the original offending tweet. It is FAR worse than his “certain kinds of feminist” defense.
I can’t comprehend such a brilliant man making such stupid statements.
Those things Esteleth said at # 91 and #93. That!
Louis
P.S. Scientismatist, #92, bear in mind that for my money “reasons” explicitly also include everything from arsehole to doing it just to deliberately be a spectacularly misogynist arsehole. I rule nothing out because I don’t know enough to psychically pluck Dawkins’ reasons from the aether. I suspect a few things. Speculation. What isn’t speculation is his pattern of behaviour. That’s damning. Very.
Seven of Mine (#124)
It’s the Super-Thinky Thought Leader™ version of going into a comment thread on someone else’s blog and saying “I know I’m going to get flamed for this, but.”
I remember how long it took me to accept that my perspective was so partial, that I was *completely* blind to so many things I have never had to deal with.
I want to like RD, I really hope he’ll do the jump, it would be awesome for the skeptic movement.
Iyéska @110: Thanks. I mostly lurk here, but this shit gets my goat. My actual contemporary at Oxford was Hitchens.
Tony! The Queer Shoop:
That’s basically what I’m saying, yes. I’m NOT saying it’s inevitable or automatic, just that it’s very common and, as Pete Shanks points out, the path of least resistance for them. I didn’t think “old privileged people tend to hold more old-fashioned, privileged attitudes, on average” would be controversial, tbh.
I am, to repeat again repeatedly, not defending Dawkins’ character or actions. The only disagreement we have, as far as I can tell, is that I think his recent…outbursts, or whatever you want to call them, are a sad kind of self-defense against the knowledge of his own moral complacency and unearned privilege. That, as Pete Shanks points out, he can’t possibly have completely missed in his time spent outside his university.
Really I just wanted to contribute one thought to the discussion in this thread, that when you condemn someone’s actions, their background and motivations are kind of relevant even if the actions are unambiguously bad. Dawkins’ actions are harmful, but I think they stem from weakness and fear rather than malice. That doesn’t make Dawkins less of a bad person, necessarily, just a different kind of bad. Which I guess is where we disagree.
Zeppelin
Dawkins says what he says because he believes it.
He is old but he is not confused or locked in the past.
He has a highly trained intellect and these are his thoroughly reasoned opinions.
Zeppelin:
I don’t care where they stem from. That’s ultimately meaningless to me. I care what impact his words and actions have. Your words strike me as someone trying to minimize, however slightly, the impact of someone they like and/or admire.
****
Jeff S @125:
What does level of intelligence have to do with making stupid statements though? Really smart people say really dumb things all the time.
More to the point, what Dawkins has been saying for years isn’t just stupid. He’s been making sexist statements for years. He’s been dismissing the lived experiences of women for years. He’s doing more than just “being stupid”. He’s being actively harmful.
Pete Shanks @ 129:
I completely understand. You’re in a better position than most to clarify certain issues though, having had an Oxford education experience yourself. That’s seriously appreciated.
Re: cognitive dissonance.
I’m sure there is cognitive dissonance. The problem is that at this point that really is not useful in any good sense beyond people he personally knows and trusts getting through to him. I’m a person very obsessed with how people come to and defend terrible ideas. I would love to find the magic set of words that can pop the seams limiting a given persons unconscious perceptual choices and compartmentalizations.
But that does not really exist as a thing. So any cognitive dissonance that may exist has to be dealt with the old fashioned way. He has have his attention shoved at the problem in a way that leaves him little choice but to see what he is doing, or he has to become irrelevant. Either the signal has to overcome the noise of his ego and supporters, or the movement has to be taken out from under him. Also the atheist/skeptic community functionally splits somewhat for a couple of decades until personalities too burned to deal with one another die off or go on to other things. I can live with any of them.
Jeff S:
Myself, I remain rather baffled by all the people who consider Dawkins brilliant. Now that’s said:
Dawkins views and statements on various subjects aren’t stupid. They are, however, often misogynistic, sexist, patriarchal, dismissive, privileged, racist, and narcissistic in focus. His views, opinions, and statements on various subjects agree with those of a whole lot of people, for whom he provides bias confirmation. Dawkins loves to come across as The Lofty, Vulcan Academian™, of course he’s right, after all, he knows how to logic. He’s simply not interested in any viewpoint which differs from him. As A. Noyd said so well in #123: I mean he’s not just fighting against having to change his own mind but against anyone convincing others that he has no fucking idea what he’s talking about.
Oh good. Richard Dawkins has some more thoughts on feminism, which he will patronizingly mansplain to me, because I’m just too damned stupid and flighty to notice that feminists are conning me into becoming a professional victim.
You know, you can’t read a single comment thread involving the subject of rape, on any site in this community, without realizing there is a serious problem. That is, unless you’re not a feminist.
half the old guard is dead, and it’s past time the other half retire, apparently.
rabidwombat:
Or you’re defining your feminism in, ah, interesting ways. Dawkins does believe he’s pro gender equality, but it’s the kind where most of the goals have already been achieved, and what those feminists are harping about is simply whinging about non-essential matters, and creating victim complexes in all and sundry.
He’s one of the best science popularizers I’ve seen in the last 40 years; and that’s a very hard thing to do. I’ve read every single one of his books and find him a much better presenter than even Gould was.
past that?
you’re absolutely dead on. There was nothing terrifically remarkable about his specific contributions to research in evolutionary biology (about average I’d say), and most certainly nothing remarkable (the opposite even; banal I’d describe them) about his contributions in any other venue.
Ichthyic:
Retiring wouldn’t change his mind. Retiring wouldn’t shut him up. Retiring wouldn’t reduce his high nuisance value.
#130 Zeppelin
No, you fucking blockhead hand waving it away like “He’s not evil, he’s just normal” is the problem. We’re not making him out to be a monster. Rapists and their enablers are people, everyday regular people that come in every shape and size. Dawkins is one of them.
Of course it’s very common! Have you seen the world?!?! Dear fucking god, there’s so much wrong with and most people don’t see the problem and don’t want to change. That is not the point. What’s true is true and what’s right is right, and there’s no denying what Dawkins has done is wrong. You can either bleat about the sky being blue and ignore us or you can join in us in a chorus that has too few voices and point out what too many people do wrong right now in this case: rape apologia.
You are part of the problem or part of the solution. That may sound too simple but the fact is everything that’s not fighting the status quo is supporting it.
#138 Iyéska
Like the Republicans (USA) that say they aren’t racist and that we live in a post-racist society. Only now we’re also post-suffrage now. I wonder why they haven’t thought to coin that ridiculous term yet? Too stupid or maybe not wanting to acknowledge women’s movements at all. I know my education was full of twisting Martin Luther King’s message to just “turn the other cheek” and barely touched on suffrage. I guess they couldn’t find a handy way to corrupt that as well?
sigh.
Ichthyic @ 139, for me, there’s more to it. A person could consider Sagan brilliant, and I wouldn’t argue it over much, any more than I’d get into a serious argument over whether Dawkins is brilliant. To me, there has to be more than intelligence at play. If you really want to work that brilliant label, I think that takes intelligence, and thoughtfulness and consideration. There needs to be an ability to think outside one’s personal box, and that takes compassion and empathy. Simply hailing frosty logic doesn’t cut it.
Dawkins spends a lot of time trying to remove the human equation from ideas and situations, where Sagan focused on the human equation a great deal. So, on a personal level, I’m more inclined to toss the ‘brilliant’ to Sagan. All that said, yes, Dawkins is a good science communicator (but so are Carl Zimmer, Victor Stenger, Brian Greene, and Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Stephen Hawking, just to name a few) so I guess he gets a cookie.
@chigau
I agree with your point. I winced as I worked my way to the conclusion. (A hit, a palpable hit.)
JAL:
They have, it’s called post-sexist society. (Seriously, don’t search.)
(Trigger Warning)
I have to congratulate you PZ, on having the patience to write such a measured and compassionate appeal to this man. I would not have had the patience. :)
For me, the “Dear Muslima” thing was already a bridge too far. I literally felt he was using women’s (and little girl’s, according to Amnesty International,) mutilated genitals as props in this little fucking play. To callously throw out something so horrifying, that has happened, to women and girls all over the world, with no thought to the women who may have happened to be reading it…. I was speechless. And to do that for no better reason than some sarcastic, infantile one-up-man-ship; it really made me sick.
Personally, I think the man is beyond redemption.
agree on the first two, but not on the third.
then you need to come up with a different word, basically.
MLK is famous for noting that the biggest problem with gaining civil rights are not the extremists, but the moderates.
Thank you PZ. I know a lot of the mindhive reactionary and radical horde have been on you about your apparent lack of strong stance vis a vis Dawkins, which is a good criticism, and I know that this post (and others like it) may sever you social relationship with him. If it does, well… Maybe he’ll figure it out eventually, and I think we’ve all had explosive social or family gathering over this kind of argument. It’s a shame, but sometimes all you can do is cut the rope.
So thanks for calling it out openly, clearly, and with teeth.
I haven’t read the comments yet, but I am 67% certain of a 50/50 chance of two possibilities.
Thank you PZ, for making a good try. Sorry the consensus here seems to be that Richard Dawkins is not worth your effort. Maybe they’re right.
They are indeed right, that I should just keep quiet now. But one thing needs to be said.
Tony! The Queer Shoop @ 97: Gives a lot of history as to why PZ shouldn’t have bothered, and then says:
No. You are assuming that therapy is only for those with possible mental illness. I am sure you know better and don’t mean to do so, but must ask you to please be more careful and refrain from smearing people who seek therapy. Seriously. Therapy is for all those who can benefit from it, and only the client can judge if it is worth the time and effort.
Ichthyic:
The problem is that in someone who is considered to be brilliant, I expect to see that brilliance shine on non-science subjects too. So, yeah, new word…
well said!
Scientismist:
The point is that you had no business bringing up therapy in the first place.
entirely understandable. I did too. My disappointments started with my own major professor way back in grad school.
no heroes is something I definitely have learned being involved in academia as long as i was.
since you mention “shine”… what about the word “beacon”? that’s been used in a kind of similar context?
Dawkins might be brilliant on some things, but he’s no beacon.
also true, in that context, especially.
No beacon but he is Bright!
#145 Iyéska
I shouldn’t be surprised. I really shouldn’t. That’s not really the right word for this. It’s just the fuckheads and all they support that I’m aware of is so damn awful and daunting already. Discovering more is just crushing. But thanks for the information and warning, I will heed it.
———————
#149 Ichthyic
Too true. Too bad I never learned that in school. *grumble* I had to learn it here at 17/18 while attending community college. How goddamn fucking sad. And people assume “Oh, some southern state then”. Nope, northwest actually. But I digress, this is getting OT.
Ichthyic:
That made me laugh. :D
Chigau:
Oh gods. It says a lot that Dawkins has never had the grace to be embarrassed about that.
yay for laughs!
gonna be in short supply in subjects like this.
I remember an acquaintance of mine was terrifically excited to be going on a trip to the Galapagos with Richard about 10 years back. She blogged the whole thing; Dawkins was a big hero to her, and it sounded like a fantastic trip. Evidently he gave some good lectures on the topic, and it was generally thought to be a great trip.
I wonder what she thinks now?
yeah, come to think of it, it does doesn’t it.
Iyéska @ 154 & Ichthyic @ 156:
Agreed.
ah! my memory is better than I thought it was; or my google fu has gotten better. kinda the same thing for me any more.
found it:
http://amused-muse.blogspot.co.nz/2007/06/galapagos-diary-neo-darwinism-lecture.html
I
thinkknow I would be excited about a trip to the Galapagos.I wouldn’t care if Ronald McD were giving the ‘lectures’.
Lectures…
yer in the fukin Galapagos!!!
better link, fwiw:
http://amused-muse.blogspot.co.nz/search/label/Galapagos%20Diary
I’m having a good laugh imagining that.
Ichthyic @ 161, if I got to go to the Galapagos, I’d still be bouncing with excitement 10 years later. (This is assuming someone would be able to actually get me back home if I went to the Galapagos.)
Shortly before I read The God Delusion in 2006 I watched a (now very famous) video of a then little-known (outside of evo-bio circles) Dawkins giving a speech at Randolph Macon Womens College [Google “randolph macon dawkins”]. It was this appearance that piqued my interest and resulted in me reading the book and realising I’d been atheist for years and not known it; it also led me to the (at the time) wonderful, positive and refreshing world of online godlessness.
After the speech and some TGD excerpts Dawkins took questions from the students. One of my favourite exchanges was his curt reply to (or regarding) a Liberty University student who was being taught that the university’s dino fossils were 3000 years old. Dawkins replied (I paraphrase), “Leave right away and go to a real university.”
Another exchange, possibly the most famous, was his reply to the audience question “What if you’re wrong?”:
“”What if I’m wrong?” What if you’re wrong about the great Juju at the bottom of the sea?”
Of course we might look back on both of these moments and see them as quaint from our current perspective; our reactions as hopelessly naive, but in late 2006 I’m positive they stirred many conversations that mightn’t have otherwise happened (they certainly did for me; I was a decade past any form of religion at that point but still had some pseudospiritual vestiges wastefully lurking about in my head). That speech was a critical point for a great many people, spurring them to read TGD and other atheist books, to reevaluate their beliefs and to ask questions they’d not asked before – to seek answers they mightn’t have even known were possible to find. Perspectives were changed, as was the social landscape of the internet, not to mention many “real” communities: homes, towns, perhaps countries.
Dawkins appears to require his own RMWC moments regarding feminism and the problems the movement he helped create has with how it treats women.
First, he needs to talk to educated people about what comprises “real” feminism and stop assaulting this invented (or at least overblown) “radical” kind other people (chiefly anti-feminists, oddly enough, hardly unbiased sources) appear to be telling him is dominated by shrieking anti-sex harpies (I say “other people are telling him” because he certainly doesn’t seem to be applying his own renowned intellect to the issue). Dawkins is well-acquainted with hysterical accusations of militancy and stridency just for having the audacity to be publicly critical of religion and its effects; he should try to empathise with feminists who receive precisely the same type of mistreatment.
Second, Dawkins needs to ask himself “What if I’m wrong?”. What if he’s wrong about feminism, about rape culture, about Shermer’s creeptastic behaviour, about Rebecca Watson, about pretty much everything he’s tweeted about regarding feminism since “Dear Muslima”? And he needs to ask properly, the same way he would if he was asking about some scientific phenomenon he didn’t understand – because it’s very clear he does not understand either feminism or the nature of the complaints against atheist/skeptic culture’s obvious woman problem right now.
Dawkins is already on public record with Ophelia Benson decrying threatening and abusive language and behaviour. This is of course a good (and long overdue) thing, but it’s not only a no-brainer to oppose that kind of incandescent hatred, it’s addressing the very pointiest and most extreme example of the sexist and misogynist treatment that feminist atheists and skeptics experience every day, online and in person, in many forms and at different intensities. Dawkins should converse further with Ophelia and other atheist feminists about the real nature of the sexism problem within organised skepticism (not to mention the further problem of delayed, insufficient, flippant, insulting, rank-closing organisational and leadership responses to it). He knows that the problems caused by religion aren’t limited to suicide bombers and murderers of abortion doctors; he should thus be able to realise that the problems of sexism and misogyny in atheism aren’t limited to those who tweet graphic threats of rape and violence.
TL;DR: Dawkins should take his own advice.
heh. oh, I think you’d get tired of it. not a pleasant place to try and make a life for yourself, really.
I think even the Grants might agree with that, having spent 40 years there.
good place to visit, wouldn’t want to live there.
:)
@ Scientismist
I’m not denying the uses of therapy, but how is mentioning mental illness “smearing” anyone. I don’t believe mental illness is a smear.
which was paraphrasing the first response to Pascal’s wager, though I doubt Richard made the attribution apparent.
I became familiar with Richard Dawkins back in the seventies when The Selfish Gene came out. I worked in biology and greatly resisted his idea that the gene was the only unit of selection. I did eventually reluctantly agree with him, although I did not want to give up the idea of group selection. That book and The Blind Watchmaker were wonderfully written and convincing examples of popular science writing. I have read some of his other science books as well. I respected him for his clear and logical thinking, but I never admired or liked him. That was because even in these early books his vast egotism shone out. He was absolutely sure that he was correct because of his superior intellect and brilliantly logical mind. He oozed what I now know to call privilege.
–
I never read his atheism books–it would have been preaching to the choir. On all subsequent topics he has been uninformed and incapable of seeing his ignorance, Taking his words at face value, he fancies himself the great defender of logical thought and the objective point of view. He seems to perceive feminism as a dogma, something to be resisted. This despite that fact that he has made no effort to listen to what feminists and women have to say. He doesn’t see a problem, therefore there isn’t one.
–
I also do not see that he suffers from cognitive dissonance on the issue of feminism. I think he has no doubt whatsoever that his view is the correct one, and, yes, certainly he is a good person and in favor of equality for women, something that has already been achieved in the Western world in all the significant ways!
–
P. S. Louis, I love you!
hold on there…
one, Dawkins NEVER said the gene was the actual unit of selection. people get this confused all the time, because he was using the gene to explain selection in terms of allele frequencies.
he believes selection acts at the level of the individual in a population, just like the other 99.9999% of evolutionary biologists do, for the vast, vast majority of everything we have seen so far.
there are some probably exceptions to that, but they are the tiniest of minorities and actually tend to “prove the rule”.
there, now I feel better.
carry on.
rabidwombat @ 171: Right. Regretted the word “smearing” as soon as I pressed “Send”. Perhaps a better word: “discouraging”. A subject to be handled with care.
you know, this makes me think I’ve been wrong about Dawkins as a science popularizer all this time, because this idea that somehow he was actually promoting the gene as level on which selection acts is WAYYY too common.
I’m now reconsidering in light of recalling just how many times this has come up, not only the more subtle confusion, but also the gross “selfish gene” confusion we so often see.
maybe Dawkins really didn’t do us many favors with this analogy after all.
hmm.
Hank_Says
Dawkins says what he says because he believes it.
He is old but he is not confused or locked in the past.
He has a highly trained intellect and these are his thoroughly reasoned opinions.
(last time, I promise)
and then there’s
“meme”
The very model of a modern armchair general @ # 108: Remember back when journalists routinely described Dawkins as “strident and shrill”, no matter how pleasant and smiley he tried to be?
At that time, I used to cite the videos of RD interviewing Ted Haggard and Wendy Wright (of “Concerned Women for America”™) to show how he maintained courtesy and calmness in situations where just watching the tape made my palms itch to slap somebody.
Dawkins had ample opportunity in those and similar situations to provoke and antagonize, but apparently refrained. Less than a decade later, something in his mentality has changed, and not at all for the better. Perhaps he would do better to re-don the affable-oh-so-proper-English-professor role that served him quite well earlier – but things have already gone too far for that.
Hank_says:
Yeah, about that…
A lot of us went on record with a “I’ll wait and see”. Well, I waited, and I can see. The view isn’t good. Dawkins said:
which is one big problem, because he’s trying to say that he was entirely unaware of reactions to his saying awful shit. I don’t believe that. Anyroad, he certainly can’t claim that again, and there is the whole ugliness of it all: he is aware that much of the shit he stirs provides encouragement and enables the misogynistic faction of the atheoskeptisphere, and he won’t stop stirring shit.
I’m not willing to give him the benefit anymore. It was really difficult to do that after Dear Muslima, and from where I sit, all he has been doing for the last three years is to continue digging that hole.
@ Scientismist
Got it! Thought maybe I was misreading. :)
Oy. That should be benefit of the doubt in #180.
yeah, great point. that really did NOT turn out to be nearly as useful (constructively) as people thought it was going to be.
@180 Iyeska and @177 chigau:
I’m not hopeful that Dawkins would even read my comment (nonetheless I’ve since blogged n’ tweeted it), much less act on it. That was more or less me venting. If Dawkins could apply his mind to feminism as he has to biology and religion (and thus change his mind and rethink his stance) it’d obviously be a major win for the movement (such as it is) over all, not just women; that doesn’t mean I think it’s at all realistic to think he will.
To Ichthyic at 174. Well it’s been many years since I have read The Selfish Gene, and I respect Ichthyic’s knowledge, so I’m going to assume that Ichthyic is correct in saying that Dawkins never said that the gene is the unit of selection. I couldn’t find my old copy of the book, but I did find the text on line and did a search on “unit of selection.” This is one of several passages I came up with. Even if Ichthyic is correct, it is easy to see how I got the idea that he thought that the gene was the unit of selection. He does say that it is the “fundamental” unit, and I am incorrect in my comment at 173 in saying it is the “only” unit of selection–that was poor wording on my part.
–
“Before that I must argue for my belief that the best way to look at
evolution is in terms of selection occurring at the lowest level of all. In
this belief I am heavily influenced by G. C. Williams’s great book
Adaptation and Natural Selection. The central idea I shall make use of
was foreshadowed by A. Weismann in pre-gene days at the turn of the
century- his doctrine of the ‘continuity of the germ-plasm’. I shall argue
that the fundamental unit of selection, and therefore of self-interest, is
not the species, nor the group, nor even, strictly, the individual. It is the
gene, the unit of heredity. To some biologists this may sound at first like
an extreme view. I hope when they see in what sense I mean it they will
agree that it is, in substance, orthodox, even if it is expressed in an
unfamiliar way. The argument takes time to develop, and we must begin
at the beginning, with the very origin of life itself.”
PZ,
I think you’re being a little extreme in what you allow “radical feminist” to mean. Can’t “radical” evolve in its meaning? Isn’t that what the word “radical” is meant to do? Must we forever more consider “radical feminist” to be a compound word – noun – defined as something that was set in stone for all perpetuity in the 60’s or 70’s? Doesn’t it sound ridiculous when you consider it that way?
I’m a male liberal. I read feminist books for fun, in between various other kinds of social and physical science tomes. I happen to have just finished Jessica Valenti’s “The Purity Myth.” It’s a good book, and I recommend it – many points are quite valid. But Valenti picks fights in it with other women, other feminists, and calls out some people she argues are pseudo-feminists. She also makes some arguments I felt were too weak to bother putting into print. Other times – actually, disturbingly often – she makes statements like, “Men say ……,” which increasingly left me feeling like the victim of a sexist attack. “I’m not that way – and I know plenty of men that aren’t – and I bet Jessica does, too.” In some cases, Valenti structured her arguments around declaring “Men” (or some other unqualified group) were giving mixed messages to women or girls, on the grounds that she can find cases where members of the group did or said one thing, and other members of the group did or said something quite different. I found this method of argument very troubling, especially since groups I am an unwitting member in were often the ones she was ostensibly criticizing, even though I often agreed with her theses, if not her particular line of attack. I’m picking on Jessica only because I just happen to finish that book a week or so ago. Question: seeing as Jessica is criticizing, at times, even feminists – and is building cases that are not only a minority opinion in our culture, but also probably a minority opinion among liberals AND feminists (depending on who you or she or anyone allows to be in those groups), can’t we say that in some ways, she’s a radical – and also a feminist – and also a RADICAL FEMINIST?
As I say that, I’m not even disagreeing with her arguments, per se (itemizing my agreements or disagreements here isn’t the point.) My point is simply that it is ABSURD to say that: “radical” Feminism is now mainstream Feminism.” Good Lord! that writer even put quotes around “radical” and DID NOT CAPITALIZE IT! And yet you turned it into a proper noun!
Additionally, you’ve gone too far equating “radical feminism” to some kind of “radical evolutionist.” On political issues, unless you believe in some form of ABSOLUTE moral spectrum that it is fair to judge all people and movements again, there is always a “left” and a “right” to any particular position – a way to be EVEN MORE liberal or EVEN MORE conservative than whatever political position you pick. A positive and a negative on the X-axis, with “zero” serving as a mere arbitrary and relative position, designating the viewpoint being identified-with or analyzed at any one moment. Evolution is categorically different. There’s no “left” of “Evolution.” The notion that “no deity was involved” doesn’t have anywhere further “left” (ie anti-supernatural) to go. So it makes no sense to use the term “radical evolutionist,” unless you actually mean “militant evolutionist,” or “radically outspoken evolutionist,” in which case “radical” is a modifier to “outspoken,” not “evolutionist.” Again, the boundary for what is “radical” is, here also, how far from the current zeitgeist a person is – as it make perfect sense to talk of a, “radical anti-evolutionist” – clearly that’s someone who is far from the popular middle ground of current US culture, that, “Evolution MAY be true, but on the other hand, God may still exist, too. I don’t know that we can be sure what the right answer is one way or another.” But if you go back 200 years, the popular opinion in the US was that you were completely nuts if you didn’t recognize that Jesus might be coming back any day now – to the point that our democratic government happily wrote laws that were explicitly based on Christian religious opinions. “Radical” has moved.
Finally, I just have to say that while I do suspect women really are under-represented in the sciences, I was fascinated to hear that someone actually did a (or more?) study(ies) showing that women perform better or worse on tests of spatial reasoning at various points in their menstrual cycle. I’m married. I’ve seen the mood changes, and even if this effect is 100% due to changes in a woman’s patience, it is hard to imagine that hormones that have such a profound and subtle effect on people would not modulate their intellectual skills in any way. And since everyone is a little different here and there, there should be a spectrum of average hormone levels to be found in a random sample of people (both men and women), and there should also be a spectrum of responses to hormone level CHANGES in people, whether it is due to variations in hormone receptors, antagonists, or simply the varying surface area of whatever anatomical parts come into play. Also, all of these should vary over the life of any one person.
Let us suppose for one moment that higher levels of testosterone may actually be associated with some form of greater competitiveness, concern over sexual status, and also some forms of mental computation. Is this a potential candidate theory for the common joke that theorists (which have historically usually been men) have almost always done their best work before the age of 40?
I don’t know – but I will say this – I’m 37, and I’m starting to wonder, especially as I see friends that are just a bit older (and sometimes much older) than myself seem to be (or have) transition(ed) into a state of incuriousness that I didn’t know was in them in the past. I can sense various possible causes for such a phenomenon in myself – not least of which might be just the distractions of new aches and pains as you get older that were never a problem when we were 20-something and staying up all night.
Hank_Says @169:
Very. Well. Put. This is advice Dawkins dearly needs to take, laid out clearly and concisely.
::claps::
Epicurus via Louis @40 has the word for Dawkins: malevolent.
I’ve never liked him; even when I was agnostic-atheist I wasn’t interested in reading his sort of works, and found him a distasteful, abrasive sort, regardless of his opinions. But the last three years have confirmed that he’s a repellent misogynist and xenophobe. I loathed him for a while; now I just despise him. I’d say his attitudes are beneath contempt, but my contempt can reach down a very long way.
Jared,
I have to wonder about your exposure to feminism if you are going to pick Jessica Valenti as you example of a RADICAL FEMINIST. In fact, I think most complaints about her are that she is an incredibly privileged woman and part of the not-so-radical-feminist-establishment. The sort of corporate, upper class, white feminism so many people call out.
–
And this,
I’m sure you were. Care to link to said study? Have men been studied during different hormonal cycles to test their spatial reasoning? If no, why not?
Jared Hansen:
Oh for the love of rats, #notallmen bullshit. Please, if you feel a need to continue on at such length, take it to Thunderdome, an open thread, where you can impress everyone’s socks off at how many things are #notallmen.
Oh, and:
I’m sure everyone is thrilled you’re having fun, but it isn’t a matter of fun for women. These are issues which impact our lives, every day.
Jared @186:
With regard to ‘radical feminist’, have you read comment #17?
Thanks Tony! (187). I’ve blogged it and tweeted it directly at him; maybe he’ll read it and maybe he’ll dismiss me as a mere Bralek Vagylon thrall. If so, fine – I’m not expecting a Damascene conversion. But FFS I’d like to think he’s as capable of examining the reasons for and sources of his own beliefs as much as he is those of religionists.
Jared Hansen:
Oh for the love of rats, not-all-men bullshit. Please, if you feel a need to continue on at such length, take it to Thunderdome, an open thread, where you can impress everyone’s socks off at how many things are not-all-men.
Oh, and:
I’m sure everyone is thrilled you’re having fun, but it isn’t a matter of fun for women. These are issues which impact our lives, every day.
Jared Hansen:
Women are under represented in STEM fields. You’re a sexist asshole, Jared, and a not very bright one, at that. Must be all that testosterone sapping your intellect. Seems to me you’re looking to confirm your bias. Oh, and you being married? Doesn’t matter. In case you haven’t figured this out, women are not monolith.
You might read feminist books for fun, but you aren’t learning anything.
very true. I really am basing my statements on clarifications he has made since (where he fully agrees that selection acts at the level of the individual), and it’s not fair of me to say you “got it wrong” from reading his book, my apologies.
in fact, this is exactly why I am suddenly revising whether the entire idea was of lasting positive value to explaining evolution.
I start putting together how he explained what he “really meant” in Selfish Gene, with what was actually written in there, and it rather closely resembles how he explained what he “really meant” when he wrote “Dear Muslima”.
Maybe I have indeed overrated his value as a science popularizer. Frankly, I have come to think people like Neil Shubin actually are doing a better job of it.
or, maybe my memory is being colored by recent events.
to be clear, I have heard Dawkins explain that when he said:
…what he meant was that he was focusing on the best level of explaining evolution to someone who did not understand it, not that the evidence indicated that the level of selection IS at the level of the gene in the scientific literature (which it most certainly wasn’t). He was thinking it was the best way of explaining it to make it clear to someone who had never heard of it, or was misinformed.
for example, look at his CV. you won’t find support for the idea that selection acts at the level of the gene there as a primary mechanism of evolution.
all that said, again, you are absolutely right that he does NOT make this very clear in the Selfish Gene.
I read
as “but he’s no bacon,” which made me laugh.
Then I read
and laughed more. :)
…and if any of that isn’t clear, I suppose I could go into how he separated “replicators” from “individuals” in concept, but that he never meant that they didn’t go together in evolutionary terms.
and, all THAT said, there ARE actual example where it’s pretty clear that selection IS acting at a gene level, but those are rather exceptional cases.
…and, as an even further addendum, this perhaps is all irrelevant to the topic at hand.
shutting up now.
You’re wrong. I’ve been a feminist for decades. I will no longer define as such.
Increasingly often, in recent years, I have been required to define my feminism as one which does not demonise men and victimise women. I have always insisted to detractors that this is a false impression of feminism which is simply the aim for equal rights between the genders. I’m no longer sure that this is always the case.
The final straw has been the last two weeks I have spent discussing things like date-rape detection nail varnish and arguing that they should not be held back by concerns that they place more responsibility on women to prevent rape. I argued that, of course, no blame should ever attach to rape victims and we must vehemently protest any claims that a woman’s clothing or alcohol consumption should be relevant at all. However, I also claimed that women should be able to choose to protect themselves in any legal way they wish and should not be shamed for doing so. We can counter vigorously any claim that women who don’t want to burden themselves with nail polish & rape alarms and self-defence classes etc are to blame for being attacked without the need to limit women’s options to protect themselves. I was supporting and supported by rape survivors at various points who felt empowered by such options. I, and they, had tweets captured and spread all over Twitter with the captions “Victim blamer” “Rape enabler” and “Rape apologist.”
The same thing happened a few months ago when I supported a woman arguing that her consensual BDSM sex life was nobody’s business but her own. She was being called a “rape enabler” for this and so was I when I supported her right to any consensual sex between adults that she chose. Interestingly, it was never revealed whether she was dominant or submissive in this relationship. It was assumed that she was submissive. An interesting question to ask of feminists who assert essentialist dichotomies – male/aggressor vs female/victim – is what they can think is likely to come of this? If they accept that gender roles are largely the result of cultural conditioning, why would they ever think it a good idea to define gender in this way?
Last year, I was concerned by an article saying misogyny was rife in atheist groups and asked people to share experiences and give examples so I could help to do something about it. I am active in atheist groups and well situated to do so. I was accused of being an MRA in disguise because asking such a question was victim blaming. I was blocked despite proving myself an active feminist and assuring people that I wanted to get involved in addressing the problem they had raised.
My feminism is about equality & sisterhood and women having a voice and choice. Some people calling themselves feminists want to limit women’s choices and voices as much as patriarchy ever has. I thought they were a minority. They probably are. But they are increasingly vocal and dominant and I no longer wish to keep having to define my feminism as actual feminism. Actual feminism is gender equality and humanism and I shall define myself by those terms now. My mother, a committed second wave feminist, who was active in opening up business qualifications and equal pay to women in the 70s as well as demanding rape within marriage to be criminalised, is deeply saddened by the knowledge that if she expressed her views now, she would be likely to be labelled an anti-feminist and a rape enabler.
Question Helen Pluckrose, do you see equal opportunity, or equal results, to the ideal you wish for?
I haven’t read any of these – my original source was while listening to an audiobook while driving. I didn’t write down that source nor can I even remember what book it was, unfortunately. I read a lot of books. But the below links are just the first few that seemed relevant from 5 seconds of google searches, and in case you find it, I am also aware that someone either did a counter-study or at least a criticism of the study about women’s mentrual cycles vs spatial reasoning.
In response to your insinuation that the universe is sexist if…. “Have men been studied during different hormonal cycles to test their spatial reasoning? If no, why not?”….
…well… what hormonal cycles are you referring to, exactly? I mean, I can think of some ways to non-pharmaceutically vary men’s hormone levels, but then you have to ask whether those are going to be as clinically significant as women’s variations? Just guessing, but probably not – and if you have study participants do something to force their hormone levels to vary, how do you control for that activity being the cause of variation, rather than the hormones themselves?
Much more importantly, women are ~51% of the population and a large portion of them experience regular hormone changes. I may be ignorant (but not sexist) when I say that I’m not aware that men undergo any such degree of REGULAR hormone changes. Therefore, the social impact of female menstrual hormone changes is likely to be much more significant than that of males. But I’m 100% in favor of studying hormonal impact on males, anyway. While you didn’t ask, I will say that I would say that there is not likely to be any great difference between a 20% increase in testosterone in a female vs a male, though males may be effectively habituated to testosterone, having significantly higher levels of it, routinely – which suggests you might need the males to receive a 30% increase to see the same impact that 20% causes on women, etc.
But here’s the real point – your insinuation that we need to somehow have equal EVERYTHING or else it’s yet another indication of how anti-female our culture is – has been taken to an extreme in how you look at the world. In this case, your comments seem indicative of what I might call “radical feminist” because in trying to pretend that men and women are 100% anatomically identical, you’ve gone way past what I think most (informed) people consider “the optimal” position on correcting the sexism of our history and too many of our people today. What I sense is the “mainstream” liberal (not feminist – but LIBERAL) position these days is that people are different – and women and men are different – and absolute equality would be a silly goal – rather, we need to find ways to treat people WITHOUT *UNDUE* PREJUDICE – but that should not mean handing out tampons to 4 yr old boys (or 4 yr old girls), simply because we might one day to provide them to 14-year-old girls free-of-charge! Instead, we are correct to PRE-JUDGE (based on general facts about the groups they belong to) that neither a 4-yr-old boy nor 4 yr-old girl need tampons. Therefore, there is a case for reasonable “PREJUDICE” there. That is what the word means. But is there a case for the prejudice that black people are dumb? 40 year-old white men are child-molesters? No. Those are undue prejudices.
By the way – I am IN NO WAY saying that “the science” indicates women are worse, on average at “science” or “spatial reasoning” or anything else. The variation that MAY be real in women isn’t necessarily a negative – it might be a positive (over men) – in that it may lend women a naturally more varied perspective on science – such as if the ability to periodically operate your brain with the “spatial reasoning” regions “dampened” in their activity, that may give the AVERAGE, RANDOM woman a greater range of perspectives and lend her the ability to approach problems more creatively than the AVERAGE, RANDOM male. Did you notice that you did not seem to think of that, prior to objecting to the possibility of unbalanced studies?
No.
You’re being defensive. You are not being objective. That’s what tends to cause the opinions you spout right now to be more “radical” than “balanced.” In my mind, a “radical feminist” these days is often someone who spends “too much” time looking at all the sexist idiots in our society, and reacting to them as if there are far more sexist idiots than their really are. What I think of as a (non-radical) feminist is someone that considers sexism in the context of the actual spectrum of sexist idiots AND pro-feminist people, does not use or exhibit any obvious prejudiced stereotypes in their communication or judgements. For example, just like no one should ever say “Black people are ____,” or “Women are ______,” no balanced feminist should EVER write a statement in the format, “Men are ______,” unless the descriptions are about objective facts – or at least facts that are being scientifically studied in a credible fashion – such as “Women are on average 10% shorter than men.”
Book: “Neuroscience” chapter: “Why Women’s and Men’s Brains Differ” Section: “Sexual Dimorphisms of Cognition”
(Kinda says it all, doesn’t it?)
http://books.google.com/books?id=DbahEn-y6AoC&pg=PA548&lpg=PA548&dq=women+menstrual+cycle+spatial+reasoning&source=bl&ots=D0cuKzBDWg&sig=22DycZLuFi6Q-BXc0DNXr14oLsk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xZYTVPedDoWZyAT5-IC4Dg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=women%20menstrual%20cycle%20spatial%20reasoning&f=false
“Men’s Test Scores Linked to Hormone”
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/14/us/men-s-test-scores-linked-to-hormone.html
“Why men (yes, men) are better multitaskers”
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/were-only-human/73955.html
“Studies Tie Sex Hormones to Women’s Level of Skills”
http://articles.latimes.com/1988-11-17/news/mn-453_1_hormones
http://www.psychologyandthebody.accesspsychologyonline.com/Implicit%20memory%20across%20the%20menstrual%20cycle.pdf
“Men Reason Better In Spring, Study Says” http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1991-11-14/news/9102160632_1_testosterone-spatial-reasoning-cognitive-ability
Jared Hansen @ 186
And do you have a link to these studies you’re referencing? And have similar studies been done with testosterone levels?
Interesting thing about testosterone: how often someone ejaculates can have an effect on its levels, exercise or competition can make it spike, having children can make it nose dive, and then there’s all the evidence for various testosterone cycles based on the time of day, month, and year!
If we’re going to start tossing around the idea that hormones “modulate intellectual skills”, then we’re going to have to consider that jerking off in the morning might be like getting your T period. Phew, thank goodness folks depending on ovaries or hormones in a bottle have far more straight-forward and predictable cycles. Where would the world be if we let people dominated by testosterone–with all its moody ups and downs all the damn time!–get involved in science?
Hey look, there’s a whole fucking book about the flaws in Jared’s citations.
*snicker* Typical of presuppositional thinking, and not checking your citations for problems….
Helen Pluckrose @ 200:
I am sorry you’ve had those experiences. I’ve been discussing feminism online for over 20 years, and never have had anything like that happen to me, so I’ll count myself lucky. I’ve also been a noisy, active feminist since the late ’60s, seriously diving into activism around ’71 or so. I’m still identifying as feminist, and will continue to do so. I remain standing by mine @ 17:
About this…I was unaware of the nail polish until very recently, and my first thoughts were “oh yay, another thing women have to take responsibility for” and “the polish can’t detect alcohol loading, which is the more popular tactic now”. I think if a woman wants to use the polish, that’s fine, however, it doesn’t address any of the underlying problems. I’d much rather see more women raising the awareness of men, bringing up bystander strategy on the part of men, and so on. I think there’s plenty of room for discussing all of that stuff.
TMM @ 204:
Why, I’m shocked. Seriously. No, really. I am!
:near fatal eyeroll:
You might wish to limit yourself to suppositions that are backed by books you can remember.
Presuming this is directed at Nerd, but I just have to stick in a WUT? here. Is it possible for a strawman to be classified as weapons-grade?
@Jared Hansen #201
Do you think it’s more important that we view particular instances of sexist behavior as manifestations of individual hatred and contextualize them that way OR connect them to the ways society facilitates and even encourages sexist stereotypes? I mean, if we’re going to talk about getting defensive and not being objective, can you look into that mirror and not see that you’re advocating for the status quo by minimizing the effect of sexism?
From selfish gene to self-absorbed geneticist.
Helen Pluckrose @199:
(None of what I’m about to say is an attempt to persuade you to retain the feminist label)
I’m sorry that you’ve experienced that. As a man, I know damn well that feminism isn’t demonizing all men and victimizing all women. The people making those claims are attacking a straw version of feminism. I do not, in any way feel threatened by the movement to seek political, social, economic, and religious equality for women. In fact, I embrace that. I came to embrace that by interacting with the people here, from our host to a great many of the commentariat.
I think some people don’t understand (not you; the people criticizing you) that supporting an individual woman’s decision to use tools such as that nail varnish as a safety measure is not the same thing as advocating that all women do so. Those critics, for some reason hear “women, use this nail varnish and you won’t get raped/reduce your chances of getting raped” instead of what’s being said “women have the right to take measures they feel necessary for their safety and if purchasing this nail varnish is something they want, I support it”. It’s like they see things in black and white.
I can’t even wrap my head around this argument from your critics. You’re supporting the right of adult women to engage in consensual sexual activities with other adults. There’s nothing rape-enabling about that.
As I said, I’m sorry you’ve been treated so harshly.
Jared:
And you’re being a condescending, patronizing asshole who is bordering on mansplaining.
Oh and one more thing. As I said, I mentioned Jessica Valenti because I just happened to read her book about a week ago. You took that to mean that the only feminists I read are corporate, pseudo-feminists!!!
Sense any unjustified presumptions here? Isn’t that just a little bit prejudiced?
That is the kind of “radical”-ism I think a lot of us are talking about when we talk about things we think are modern “radicals.” I wasn’t around in the 60’s or 70’s (not having any meaningful thoughts, anyway), so pardon me if I move on in my terminology. Another kind of “radical feminist” to me (and a lot of other people) is someone who passionately argues against whatever wisps of sexism they think they can see out there, even if they find themselves criticizing people modern conservatives consider “radical liberals”! “Radical feminists” can be female-defenders who seem to be hyper-sensitive to anything that seems to put women lower than men at any point in the spectrum, even if, on the average, the target of their criticism has a balanced or even biased-in-favor-of-women overall position. We (non-radical) feminists believe that women are simply better than most men at many things (um… like having babies? Breast-feeding? to cite a few anatomically absolute examples), while men are simply better than most women at many things (I’m not going to paint a frivolous target for anyone to shoot at, so you don’t get any examples) – assuming (as we always should) that we’re talking about properly qualified, stratified random samples of the male and female populations!
Considering I haven’t posted on this thread until #204, I don’t think it is aimed at me.
@ Helen Pluckrose:
Adding to the comments regretting you’ve been treated harshly. I wanted to add one quick comment on the BDSM subject — you might check out Greta Christina’s blog, where a recurring topic is precisely how to properly handle kink and consent, whatever roles are assumed by the participants.
Jared Hansen:
You’re insisting that we spend too much time looking at a sexist idiot right now. If you want to stop that, I suggest you shut up.
Also, it’s not a matter of sexistidiotspotting. It’s a matter of being immersed in a sexist culture and society. We are all sexist, there’s no escaping it. The trick is to be aware of it, and change your thinking and behaviour. Also, you can take your scare quotes, Jared, and stuff them. The more you post, the more you expose your own sexism, along with your inability to understand the concepts you’ve decided to pontificate on.
Tony (#212)
Bordering? I was just about to suggest we throw down some spike strips to blow out the tires of his Mansplaining-Mobile before he could drive any more tealdeers through the thread.
@Jared Hansen #213
So you’re not going to put any examples of things that men are better at, biologically speaking, than women? After all, you listed things that only the female sex can do (barring any genetic condition preventing these functions). You might as well have listed “producing sperm” and “having testicles.”
dam’
I’m trying to catch up.
can y’all just make paragraphs?
Amen. Stop manspainin’ Jared Hansen. It is tiresome and shows your bigotry.
Jared Hansen:
Oh, do fuck off already, won’t you? We don’t appreciate playing Vulcan Strawman games here. As I said, this would be our lives, it’s not some fun exercise for you or any other asshole to play about with.
@ Nerd: His comment directly followed yours @ 201, regarding equality and opportunity. Seemed like those portions of his comment were tailored to that position, but I probably just fell into association there, given the length of his comment.
But wow, how did I fail to highlight:
Is there a fallacy called argumentum ad linkum? Subset of argument from authority, maybe?
Tony:
Bordering? No, Jared is way past bordering. Never even bothered with bordering. From the first post, it was full on douchesplaining. No thanks.
I keep hoping that Dawkins will recognize the parallels between his struggle against religion and the struggles of feminism against sexism. I keep being wrong.
He fights for atheism because he is an atheist. He fights for white, rich, straight, male privilege because he is a rich, white, straight male. It’s clear that Dawkins would never fight against any sort of oppression which benefits him personally.
He compared being raped to getting a DUI. Fuck him.
BTW, Jared, if you’re going to continue posting in this thread (please no), please utilize the blockquote function to quote the material you’re responding to:
<blockquote> place quoted text here </blockquote>
results in
Also, please include either the nym or the comment number of the person you’re responding to (both would be swell).
I’m genuinely curious as to what goal we SHOULD be striving for then?
because all i see is a bunch of poorly thought rants about what you think we somehow shouldn’t be doing, though actually, if you bothered to think about it, none of it explains WHY you think we shouldn’t be striving for equality.
it’s just not spelled out.
is it really something as simplistic as “men make better football players than women”, masked with a bunch of entirely irrelevant twaddle?
because, if so, that’s got fuck all to do with striving for equality.
For every person who identifies as feminist and thinks BDSM is rape enabling, I’ve seen thousands of people who identify as humanist or gender egalitarians and engage full-on in rape apologetics and enabling in regards to actual cases of rape.
I think I’ll stick to the feminist label, thanks very much.
A. Noyd, Iyéska:
You’re both right.
Sorry for being a “condescending, patronizing asshole” – My sense was that my comment was pretty damn balanced, and I was responding to someone that RESPONDED to me in a presumptuous, prejudiced manner – and I responded in-kind, emotionally, but in a balanced way, intellectually.
Don’t like my comments? Don’t read them. But if you want to express yourself – say something substantive. Don’t just call people names and criticize their tone. If that’s all you got, you are just exhibiting your ignorance. Using the name “Tony! The Queer Shoop” and a profile photo indicating you are an African American – does not mean you are NOT sexist, racist, or prejudiced in practice. It doesn’t give you the right to be both inarticulate and smug. It doesn’t give you the right to insinuate that because I have an opinion based on a (relative to the “average” American – which isn’t saying much) large body of study, I’m automatically condescending.
Or maybe it’s just my irritated tone that makes me “condescending.” I’m sorry. To quote my favorite song from U2’s Rattle and Hum album, after Bono “condescendingly” lectures his audience about Apartheid abuses in South Africa….. “I don’t mean to bug yah.” Well said, white man. Well said. Harsh words and tone may seem condescending. But sometimes someone needs to stand up and condescend to some of us some of the time.
Ichthyic:
Because men and women are different! And women have periods!
Island Adolescent:
Aye, me too, but I understand Helen wanting to distance herself from that identifier.
translation:
“pardon me while I ignore easily accessible history in favor of inventing my own”
you and David Barton would get on like gangbusters I’ll bet. Or is “gangbusters” too archaic of a reference?
Jared @229:
Oh do fuck off you arrogant shitstain.
@Jared Hansen #229
You’re such a martyr for your cause. Whatever the fuck that is. Seek the substantive commentary (it’s there; you’re just evading it) or fuck the fuck off already. Getting tired of your shit.
A politician or religious figure makes degrading remarks about women and rape: Everybody takes them at their word.
Richard Dawkins makes makes degrading remarks about women and rape: He must be confused. Because you know, he’s such a gullible person. We all know he can’t think for himself and make his own decisions about what to believe and what to not believe. It’s not like he has ever written a book highly critical of established prejudices and superstitions. He must be confused and just indoctrinated by his surroundings.
of course it was, precious.
Nerd – I have been very fortunate to be born in the time and place I was, so yes, leading universities and every profession were open to me. This is not the case for many women in other parts of the world and for women in some cultures in my part of the world. This needs addressing. We also have gender roles which are concerning – women under pressure to curb careers when children come along and men being shamed out of opting to do this, women being sexualised and weak in films and men being essentially gun fodder whose lives are worth nothing. I still feel there is a lot of work to be done.
This will not be achieved by a certain dominant strain of feminism blaming and shaming women who don’t toe the line. Last week a young survivor of years of rape in a religious upbringing was being called a victim blamer and rape apologist because she felt women should be able to buy protective products like date rape detecting nail varnish and rape alarms. Someone insisted that the men should have invented electric shock collars for men having sexual thoughts about women instead. Someone else wrote an article asking why its easier to invent nail varnish rather than stop rapists from raping. I pointed out that billions of things have been invented but no-one has ever found a way to control the behaviour of everyone else in the world and if she thought it was equally easy, she should collect 3 friends and achieve this. I was then called a victim blamer and a rape enabler again simply for pointing out that ‘what should be’ cannot be made ‘what is’ simply by refusing to consider any options to prevent rape which aren’t achieving the non-existence of sex offenders.
Ten years ago, we feminists tackled law and cultural norms AND sought practical means of protection for women. Now the very suggestion of the latter is enough to have me labelled an anti-feminist and rape enabler even tho numerous rape survivors find such things empowering. I do too. I would far rather depend on myself than passively wait for rapists to realise that rape is wrong. Suddenly self-sufficiency isn’t feminism any more?
And because these are always needed: Sexism Education 101 Link Dump
egads.
is there something BEYOND mansplaining?
Jared:
You don’t have any meaningful thoughts now.
Incidentally Jared:
A: that’s not “all I got”
B: I know full well that living in the United States means I’m swimming in a culture of toxic masculinity, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, racist, classcism, and more. In addition, I know that I’ve absorbed a lot of that bullshit. I actively work to check my privilege and confront my biases on a regular basis. I know damn well I’m not perfect, and I’ve never attempted to portray that I am.
C: If I want to be inarticulate (a bizarre point), it’s damn well my choice, and my right.
D: I’m not the one being a smugnoramus you douchebag.
Oh, and let me preempt any whining on your part. I fucking use harsh language, which is allowed on this blog bc this is a rough blog. If you have problems with coarse language, the door is that way —–>.
I’m sure I’m not the only one who would love for you to depart immediately.
Oh good! I’m glad you’re here to condescend to the people who want silly things like absolute equality.
Jared Hansen:
Bless your heart.
I say that with all the power of my Southern matron foremothers.
Hey all! Thanks for taking Jared to task, it was me (I believe) he was complaining about, because I wondered if any studies had been done one men re: hormones and spatial reasoning, and if not, why not.
–
His incredibly long winded reply was unexpected, and I’ve been out and just arrived to see the aftermath.
–
Jared,
I didn’t say I thought that about Valenti, but that those are criticisms I’ve seen of her, and you might have picked a more ‘radical’ feminist to be your straw “RADICAL FEMINIST”. Also, what is with the all caps? All caps = shouting. Try for emphasis.
Sometimes feminists just need a real man to stand up and condescend to them.
My avatar is a shark. Tell, me, douchesplainer Jared… what does it mean in your world? I must hear the explanation!
Hmmm, accusing a black man of being ‘inarticulate’…
Citation needed, as this sounds too subjective….
No, it isn’t, as the root cause, and I have trained in finding root causes, isn’t the women, but rather the rape culture that certain women excuse and ignore. What is the problem with attacking root causes, which any Quality Management System does?
Ichthyic @245:
I think I was reading your mind bc I was thinking the same thing.
Thank you, Tony.
Patrick, I shall have a look. It would be lovely if she agrees that couples need to talk and discuss limits fully and have safe words. We were arguing that because of this expectation in BDSM relationships, there is actually clearer consent whilst the other ‘feminist’ was insisting that it enabled rape and no woman should ever have any kind of rough sex ever because she puts other women in danger. Talked about how desires for kink revealed a culturally conditioned macochism which the woman should have therapy for. However, as I said, the pro-kink woman never claimed to be the submissive partner. I’ll look tomorrow. Late here now.
Jared Hansen, to make my point clearer without sarcasm this time:
What you do in your life has a known effect on your hormone levels. Simply citing hormones and claiming they influence who we are and what we’re capable of is no good, because this is a two way street. Cuddling your kids and being married influences your hormones. Having an orgasm influences your hormones. Walking instead of taking the bus influences your hormones. Being subjected to sexism, racism, classism, etc, etc, all influence your hormones.
Further, our brains are incredibly plastic. We’re complex social primates and primates are capable of radically changing their behavior based on circumstances. One species of monkey might have multiple different social structures, despite all of them being part of the same larger breeding community. Perhaps the females take two males as mates in one troop and the males are responsible for primary care after nursing, while in another troop a female takes only one mate and infant-rearing is an egalitarian affair. We can see this same plasticity in behavior outside of primates, too. Male lab rats can be induced to take on a “maternal” role simply by leaving them with babies. And what does this change in behavior do? It changes hormones as well.
What we see in people in our culture is not some reflection of nature, pure and untouched by humanity. It’s the result of the complex interaction of environment and biology. Our biology alters based on our environment and culture is part of that environment.
This is why studies that seek to tell Just So stories about Men vs. Women are bullshit. They’re describing what people are like after a lifetime of stewing in a particular environment–one which, again, influences their very hormones–in order to justify that environment as natural.
An honest and critical look at the data makes this clear. Cordelia Fine’s book I linked upthread does an excellent job of going through it bit by bit. However, because we are products of our environment, it’s hard for us to take a critical look at it. It’s hard to walk away from the Just So stories. If we’re to make real progress on actually understanding how the fuck human brains work and unravelling millennia of sexist baggage, we’re going to need to. And if you’re not willing to take that hard look at that two way street, then you’re part of the problem.
Helen Pluckrose:
Well, I don’t think your response was in any way helpful. I think being active in trying to get the U.S. to implement programs like the Don’t Be That Guy campaign are seriously worth doing, as targeting potential rapists works, and it really raises awareness on the part of men, as well as encouraging them to speak out. It’s also worthwhile to keep talking about the homosocial sphere, and how it important it is for men to actively speak up. That changes culture.
Do you mind if I ask where it is you’ve been hanging out, that you’re getting these responses? Because in all the years I’ve been hanging at Pharyngula, and all the intense discussions about feminism, gender equality, rape, and the like, that sort of thing doesn’t happen here (among the regulars), but we do get a lot of sexist asshats wandering in.
Jared,
Shorter Jared,
I think you are condescending to me! I don’t like your tone! I’ll respond like a vulcan! Also, tone trolling is rude! Stop being rude!
@Nerd #247
I don’t recall anything about uprooting patriarchy in ISO 9001.
(I’m joking, please oh please don’t hurt me!)
Helen, as has been said by others, my condolences on your unfortunate experiences.
I have no idea how common this is for you, but I have serious doubts about how common such views are in general. BDSM = rape enabling is absurdly stupid, and it’s horrible to want to remove the choice to carry protective/indication devices.
None of this, however, is anywhere near as bad as engaging in actual rape apologetics in regards to actual rape cases.
I identify as liberal. Many liberals are not upset over Obama’s centrist positions and abhorred war practices. I’m not going to suddenly toss my liberal label off just because there’s not a monoculture of ideas behind a label that still at its most basic level describes my positions.
As such, again condolences on your experiences making you want to toss the feminist label. However, don’t be so hasty in thinking that picking up labels such as humanist or egalitarian is suddenly going to make everything alright and great. It’s not.
And again, just because there may be some people with odd ideas, it doesn’t suddenly make feminism not about self-sufficiency. That’s absurd.
Response to Ichthyic…
Key word, “absolute.” As in tit-for-tat equality. If girls are going to wear dresses, then boys will, too. Someone does a study of hormones on women, then they better damn be doing an equivalent one on men. If boys get penises, girls get them, too. That’s ABSOLUTE equality. I thought I made that pretty clear, but hopefully it is, now.
How is this such a difficult concept? Isn’t this a group of relatively smart people? How can it be controversial, here, to advocate in favor of equality in principle, but not equivalence – in fact – to state the rather obvious reality that equivalence would be “silly.” And if that is hard to understand, just think about something other then men and women. Think bald men and men-with-hair. Obviously, there are SOME cases where you treat bald men differently than you do men with hair, right? This is a trivially stupid point, yes. It normally goes without saying. But somehow when we start talking about men and women, a whole bunch of people lose sight of this trivially stupid point!
That is the point I am defending – and my interpretation is that that is what Dawkins is talking about – and I think both he and I use the term “radical feminist” these days to, in part, give a useful name to the bunch of people that seemingly routinely loose site of this trivially stupid principle!
So, so, so sorry that some of you find my condescending defense of this trivially stupid principle so objectionable!
It’s enough to make me pull my hair out.
Well, it seems I’m an invisible pixel to Helen. Catch you all tomorrow.
“The most dangerous thing society teaches boys and men, especially white boys and men, is that their emotions are objective logic and reason and that anyone who disagrees is being irrational.” (From here.)
Jared Hansen, you’re the perfect example of the above quote. Just shut the fuck up already. All you’re accomplishing is embarrassing your future, wiser self, should he ever emerge.
Ichthyic (#238)
A condescension tesseract?
Jared @255:
For someone so mindful of tone, you think you’d be more mindful of yours.
Jared, your inanity is remarkable. I’ll give you that.
Judging from Helen Pluckrose’s twitter feed, she is as clueless as RD on feminism, with bonus troll points for ableism and making sweeping derisive judgements with zero supporting data as reasoning for why she would be so ashamed to be associated with feminism. Most every tweet is a politely stated rephrasing of the bog standard ” oh you feminazis are so meeeen and you hate men so STFU”. If you are still reading Helen, could you provide a citation to justify this particular tweet?
Jared! Learn the First Rule of Holes.
Jesus Jumped Up Christ. You are not helping estimates of your intelligence. If someone does a study on hormones in humans, then yes, it should encompass people. It’s pretty damn stupid to want a hormone study on women only in order to confirm your bias, when all people have hormones which influence mood.
Why shouldn’t girls and boys dress how they like? There’s no reason whatsoever to lock children into gender essentialism.
:Snort: I’m pretty sure you have no idea of what you have said here. At any rate, anyone can own a penis. Equality comes into things with the recognition that a penis is not necessary for full human status.
Gog
I work under ICH guidelines, essentially the same quality system for the pharma and pharma supplying industries.
Jared
Because equality hasn’t been achieved until equivalence has been achieved. DUH. Easy concept which you miss….
If they want to they very damn-well should! And there should be no societal pushback, or douchebags who go out of their way to make fun of males who want to wear dresses, or those douchebags who carry themselves with a sense of unease and give nervous looks to these males who want to wear dresses.
Fuck you. If you’re going to go on an inane rant about how “but true equality is impossible because men have weewees and womans have vajayjays!” you may as well leave out the tidbits that mark you as either extraordinarily ignorant or just flat-out stupid. Wait… if you’re ranting about that topic you have already qualified for both those descriptors anyway…
this seems a rather simplistic viewpoint, don’t you think?
it’s a poor example, but stretch it out:
why DO you have a problem with boys wearing dresses ( you do, or you would not have used it as an example)?
because they don’t fit right?
there’s these things called adjustments.
so there must be something else wrong with it? what, exactly, IS that, Jared?
seriously, take a minute to stop and think about the very example you started off with.
then, once you figure out why you decided to use it as an example, ask yourself:
is it even really relevant to the concept of equality being discussed?
is that really what women are concerned about in society… that boys should wear dresses?
no?
….
it’s beyond irritating to see someone with such a poor grasp of what equality is really about, try to EXPLAIN it to people who have had to LIVE WITH THE ISSUE for their entire lives.
and what you did with Tony?
FUCKING BLECH.
I puke on your shoes.
@Nerd #263
Aha. I’ve only worked around QA in automotive manufacturing. I.E. I was a lab grunt and I basically huffed ethanol all day. Good times.
Iyeska, I agree but think we can do both. I am just sick of the shaming of women, including rape survivors, who have slightly different views. This was Twitter. (I’m English, BTW. )
Here is a bit of one conversation. https://twitter.com/AllisonGranted/status/509474271136337921
Tethys:
Maybe you’ll be lucky and get a response. I was the first one to respond to Helen’s initial post, and was soundly ignored, although Helen did respond to Tony and Patrick.
Why shouldn’t boys be able to wear dresses if they want?
There are girls with penises.
Ideally, men with and without hair would be treated equally.
@ Jared:
Going bald isn’t going to make your arguments any better. :)
Going bald would mean Jared and I would share something in common, and I doubt he’d want that to happen. I am, after all, an inarticulate black man.
i’m tempted to post King Missile again.
You know what, after looking at Helen’s tweets, fuck my past given condolences.
Helen is just engaging in the same strawmanning feminist bullshit as seen everywhere else. Take some idiot who thinks BDSM is rape enabling and pretend that it’s in-line with modern feminist thinking in general.
Helen Pluckrose:
Thanks for replying, Helen, I appreciate it. Hmm, I don’t mess with twitter much, but I skimmed that, and I’ll read in detail tomorrow. Twitter is difficult for me, because I prefer places where a full discussion can take place, so I’m a bit biased on that score.
no tony, you just don’t UNDERSTAND, see? let me explain to you who you are in excruciating imaginary detail, so even YOU can understand it.
….
YEEEEUCCCCCKKKK, I can’t even type that without feeling the need to chop my fingers off.
Tony:
The fuck you are. Jared is not only a sexist asspimple, he’s a racist asspimple too. I do believe that adds up to an assclam swimming in smegmarmalade sauce.
Seriously, Tony, you do not need that sort of microaggression. You are, as always, one of the kindest, most patient, heartfelt, and eloquent people here.
Yeah…
Fuck you Helen.
@Jared Hansen #255
God damn you are good at evading relevant questions about your above statements. It’s almost as if (in typical denialist fashion) you have a prescribed response to particular points of inquiry, matters of style, and resistance to introspection.
Why don’t you actually answer some questions instead of complaining about how poor Richard is being misunderstood? Why do you reflexively defend the societal differentiation of men and women as a correct response to their biological differences?
How do you feel about gender? What do you think about the concept of an un-anchored gendered fluidity? What’s a masculine job? A feminine job? Clothing? Ways of behaving? Do you think these are cultural or biological? Let us see a little deeper into your concept of what it means to be a man or a woman. Is it any deeper than the way you make it look?
Seriously, though, answer the fucking questions that are being asked of you. Stop finger-wagging at us from inside your tent of ignorance. Do that or just fucking flounce already. Nobody is amused with your wordy bullshit.
Dawkins fascinates me. On the one hand, he’s a veritable epistemic evangelist; on the other, he’s willfully, pridefully ignorant of social realities and social pain, to the point of (at least) appearing sadistic. Some might argue that all of the focus on him is a distraction, but I think it’s of great importance, as this thread has demonstrated. His case reveals so clearly that it’s not just about education and ignorance.
It’s one thing to argue, as many of us do endlessly, that there’s a (*cough* *Allen Wood*) duty to believe according to the evidence. It’s another to try to understand the various refusals to do this – sociologies of supremacy, epistemologies of ignorance, system justification – and to think about blame and responsibility in these circumstances. Is pointing to social influences an excuse, should completely free choice be assumed, or what? How much does childhood matter – in terms of cultivating social justice sensitivities, faith/indoctrination vs. teaching critical-thinking skills, and/or helping children understand themselves as epistemic and moral agents?* Can bad epistemic habits be corrected? Is anyone beyond “enlightenment”? Is the desire to evade the truth an existential universal, and/or the product of oppressive societies or positions within them? What’s the connection between knowing about oppressive realities and acting on that knowledge?
The answers to these questions are key to how we approach false, harmful, oppressive beliefs and the resistance to reality.
*See, importantly, The Altruistic Personality.
Iyéska @276:
Thank you for both the kind words and for making the point about microaggressions. I didn’t think of it that way, but since Jared said that shit, I’ve been stewing. Not outraged, but I posted to Facebook about it, and I’ve been sitting here with those comments (especially the ‘inarticulate’ one) running around in my brain.
@ Helen Pluckrose:
Please take the time to respond to Iyéska’s post above (#206). Thanks.
@ Tony!
Sorry, I’m having trouble understanding you. Well, your basic point, of course I get that. But I’m clearly failing to decipher the multiple levels of meaning present in even your most banal comment. I’m not an English major*, damn it! Stop tormenting me with insightful monographs!
* If you bring up symbolism, we’re done. Just no.
So you’re trying relentlessly to come up with some sort of example, digging away endlessly to find some sort of excuse to treat women and men differently.
The fact that you’re not very good at it doesn’t help things.
Instead, just try to treat people the way they would like to be treated.
see also:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5827/996
Sorry, Iyeska, I didn’t see your earlier message until you pointed out I’d ignored it.
“Per myself, radical feminist is more “holy fuck, I’m tired of the same old shit, over and over, and over and over and over. Fuck being polite, fuck assuming if I’m just patient enough, assholes will listen and magically see the light!”
So am I! That’s why I’m so concerned about the idea that women shouldn’t take matters into their own hands and protect themselves. I fully understand if someone says they don’t want the burden of having to put nail varnish on and carry a rape alarm and make sure they always walk with friends – they shouldn’t have to! But to call me a victim blamer and rape apologist because I support women’s right to choose to do so?
Tethys – Yes, I think I have justified my saying that accusations of misandry and disempowerment of women are justified. Because of the whole ‘mustn’t protect yourself but wait for men to realise rape is wrong’ thing. Its nearly 4 am here but I’ll gather a collection of these. Then there was the whole “Yes, all women” thing. No, not all women. Women in India? Yes. Women in Somalia? Definitely. Women in England? Sadly quite a few. But all women? No. And by relating a cat call to the experiences of women who live in a full on rape culture, they belittle the experience of other women. And the ‘Not all men are rapists. 1 in 10 M&M’s are poisoned. Not all M & M’s are poisoned. Take a handful” – its awful. You can see how awful it is if you change it to another group. ” Not all black men are gang members. Not all women are malicious gossips. Not all Muslims are terrorists.” 1 in 10 might be so they’re all suspect. And why complain about men asserting that they don’t define their masculinity as abusive misogyny in the first place? When my mother complained about men groping her and making sexual comments at work in the 60s, they said ‘Lighten up, its just fun. Are you frigid? Are you a lesbian?” Now, a mass of men said “No, That’s not me. I’m not that kind of man.” We should support them! What else could they do? Either accept that masculinity = misogyny and apologise for an identity they did not own before this or ignore it as if it had nothing to do with them. By far the best result is stating their refusal to be that kind of man.
..or the more popular version:
http://edge.org/conversation/why-do-some-resist-science
I am reminded of an old joke about a little boy and a little girl. The punchline being ; “Oh honey, I have one of these, so I can have one of those anytime I want.”
Gog:
As someone who happily identifies as a genderfluid woman, I really don’t want to hear Jared’s opinions on gender at all.
Adolescent. You too think I deserve a ‘fuck you’ for protesting that a rape survivors’ opinion does matter even if she is pro-nail varnish? That was the link you posted. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised any more.
Y’know, considering the number of ways the menstrual cycle has been claimed to affect women’s ability to be fully-reasoning human beings, I’m kinda surprised their brains don’t shrivel away at the onset of menstruation. It surely must be a waste of energy keeping all that hormonally-debilitated grey matter alive to no purpose, after all.
uh, my response would be… context matters.
I can’t speak directly to the anger others feel, but to me it looks very much like you are playing into the victim blaming game, and labeling it “empowerment”.
this is why people were asking you if you really thought the responsibility should be on the side of the victim instead of the rapist.
since you seem fond of analogies, think about the reaction of the wife of the NFL player who was videotaped beating her in an elevator. remember the press conference she had where she was defending her husband and marriage?
do you think this is what victims of spousal abuse should be saying?
why or why not?
is her reaction “valid”?
should you defend it as a legitimate way for victims of spousal abuse to deal with their abuse?
Look, its 4.14 here and I’m gonna go. Yes, I’m distancing myself from the term feminist because I’m increasingly having to explain that I don’t hate men, I don’t believe myself to living in an oppressive patriarchy, I am not a victim of anyone, I do think women have the right to wear what they want, take what precautions they want, have the sex lives they want . This is totally bizarre because I’ve been considered a radical feminist for many years! I’m actually going to post the comment saying I have the ” oh you feminazis are so meeeen and you hate men so STFU”. attitude on my Facebook because thats the one I’ve always had aimed at me.
I’m not actually going to stop being a feminist but I’ll define my aim as ‘gender equality” till I can say ‘feminist’ again without someone asking me why I oppose nail polish and mistake men for poison.
Helen @284:
Wait a minute. There are women who aren’t subjected to harassment and/or sexism? Where do they live?
More to the point, and less sarcastically, while there might be individual women who don’t experience sexism or harassment, on the whole, women across the planet do, all the time. #Yesallwomen speaks to the experiences of the vast majority of women.
As for this:
You’ve just lost me as someone sympathetic to you. Sexism manifests in a wide variety of ways, and your comment diminishes the impact of the sexism faced by women if it isn’t significant enough. Way to throw a LOT of women under the bus. Also, what’s a “full on Rape Culture” in your eyes? Last I checked, there are a lot of countries on this planet (including the US) where rape is pervasive and normalized, and attitudes toward rape lead to victims being dismissed or blamed for their rape.
Fuck that Dear Muslima bullshit.
@ Jared
Uh huh. Well luckily, all us ladies, despite our similar lady parts, don’t feel the need to defined ourselves by your interpretation of one woman’s feminism. We’re fucking people like that, go figure.
I suggest you spend less time being disturbed, and more time doing your feminism 101 homework, which you clearly haven’t done. I can tell by the way you use the phrase “sexist attack.”
I’m just quoting this because it’s fucking tragic.
I think every political movement out there, on either side of the spectrum, is going to have some loud and unscrupulous individuals jumping onto its bandwagon and then further ruining its image in the eyes of opponents. I suspect the greater proportion of those individuals are attention-seeking types who think screaming the most ludicrous and bigoted statements will make them appear edgy and win them brownie points from whatever social circle they want to squeeze into. Hence all the nuttery in all directions on reddit, 4chan, and tumblr, among many other Internet communities.
Sure, you can find plenty of messed-up individuals in the feminist movement as Dawkins says, but the same could be said for any movement he himself champions. Why doesn’t he say anything along the lines of “certain kinds of atheists”, for instance?
Ichthyic
I can’t speak directly to the anger others feel, but to me it looks very much like you are playing into the victim blaming game, and labeling it “empowerment”.
Does it really? Because I defended a woman’s right to protect herself?
How does this relate to the woman who made light of her abuse and defended her husband’s actions? I think she is putting herself in danger when she should be protecting herself by leaving. If you think women protecting themselves is victim blaming, I’d expect you to be in favour of her staying because its not her responsibility to prevent attack – its her husbands – as if that will suddenly stop him being a violent abusive arsehole.
@Iyéska #287
Fair enough. My efforts at getting something worth talking about from Jared seem to be fruitless, anyhow. I’ve relented.
Helen Pluckrose:
Okay, I went and read per your link. Before I get into that, I want you to know I do understand what you’re saying here ^.
I think you are seriously on the wrong side of things, Helen. It’s not about women deciding to do all the things on the never ending laundry list of so-called rape prevention. If a woman does those things, fine. If a woman wants to do those things, fine. That does not deal with the actual problem, though. Rape culture is the problem, and all the prevention lists in the world are not going to change anything. One of the things frequently brought up in discussions here is that while a certain prevention technique might work, and keeps me from getting raped, it doesn’t stop a rape from taking place, it just means it will be a woman who isn’t me who is raped. That’s why it’s more important to tackle the societal and cultural aspects. Women have had the burden of not being raped placed on them for pretty much all of history. Obviously, it doesn’t work so well.
Another problem with focusing on the preventions stuff is that it ignores the fact that men and children get raped too, and that highlights the necessity of dismantling rape culture, rather than focusing on prevention. It’s the 21st century, and women still find themselves in the position of needing to restrict themselves and do extra things in order to try to prevent rape.
Look at the Meet the Predators studies, where men will admit to rape as long as no one uses the dreaded word rape. Phrase it differently, and yep, they’ll own up. Read Guyland by Michael Kimmel, and you see that the bloated sense of entitlement is everywhere in guy culture.
I can’t speak for the U.K., I’m in the U.S., but what I can say is that here, victim blaming is damn near a sport. Rape culture runs incredibly deep, and those who defend it are many.
I don’t speak about any of this lightly, I’m a rape victim myself, as most here already know. Now, since I already took my pain meds, and my brain is about to melt, I’ll use this post by Amphiox instead of relying on my decreasing skills here:
@ Helen:
The conversation linked by Island Adolescent shows @Gauri Narayan directly telling @AllisonGranted that young girls will be harmed if you tell them that it’s not their “job” to avoid sexual assault. Y’know, that our focus should be on changing societal expectations, such that men are not de facto viewed as unstoppable forces of nature that roam human society, raping as a matter of instinct (boys will be boys, amirite?).
However, your tweet here:
… is a blatant misrepresentation of the position people are taking here. Nobody is saying women (or anyone of any gender) should blithely gambol through the Dark Alleys and Other Dangerous Places in our society. There’s informed prudence that people practice as a matter of course because they’re generally not idiots and recognize danger and a siege mentality that inevitably leads to questions like “Well? Why weren’t you wearing the nail polish?”
I will note in passing that you’re engaged in a Twitter conversation with a person that describes feminists as “hysterical” and accuses them of “raping feminism” (this apparently was too much for her, and is no longer available to my Twitter-fu).
Helen Pluckrose:
As that’s the case, I strongly advise you to stay the fuck away from the U.S., because we sure as hell are living in an oppressive patriarchy here.
Also, I think trying to have these discussions on twitter is not such a good thing. It’s not conducive to expressing well thought out arguments or discussions.
@Helen Pluckrose
You should leave before you find out the hard way just how little patience people here have for your aggressive cluelessness. People were way too charitable toward you at the start. The truth is, we’re all exactly the kind of feminist you’ve been whining about.
So for all of our sakes, piss off now and stick the flounce.
Helen:
Oh for…
Okay, no one has said you shouldn’t protect yourself. And men already know rape is wrong. Some of them simply don’t care. You have read the Meet the Predator studies, right?
Meet the Predators
http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/
Predator Redux
https://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/predator-redux/
I think you could benefit from reading here, too: http://victimblaming.tumblr.com/
no, because you aren’t getting what the objection really IS.
when you focus on some new toy that gives an “alert”, all you are doing is yet adding more to the responsibility women bear for men’s bad behavior.
you really might as well have said:
well, women shouldn’t go to bars, it empowers them to avoid rape!
that isn’t empowerment, it’s victim blaming.
A. Noyd:
I can say I tried. That’s probably all I’ll be able to say, too.
Iyéska #299
I’m in the UK and I’m not seeing this rape-culture-free semi-paradise. Case in point:
Young women in particular are blamed for being drunk here all the bloody time.
The only difference which might be real, I suppose, is that the more centrally-controlled police system makes efforts to improve the way the police treat victims more effective.
and, btw, it’s not even really ABOUT this toy, or the next dohickey, that enables some other random social interaction to be monitored in some way, I think what people are angry about is that you appear to be entirely ignoring the fundamental underlying issue, and brushing it away as if it was merely an objection to fucking nail polish!
No.
It should, and has been, rightly pointed out every new device that might give a woman an edge over a possible attacker, does NOT and SHOULD NOT then give society a means by which they can then say:
“Oh, well if she just used brand X device, she wouldn’t have had that happen to her.”
I don’t know if I can make it any clearer than that.
Ichthyic:
My biggest peeve about this is that the special straws and the nail polish won’t alert anyone to alcohol loading, which is the favoured tactic now. Most men aren’t stupid, they know about these alert products too.
Oh, and in the Anti-feminist logic thread, Rumtopf posted this *outstanding* article about the nail polish, which is out of the U.K.: Colour changing nail varnish isn’t going to prevent rape, or the vicious culture of victim blaming
Helen Pluckrose, please, if you read nothing else, please read that article.
It’s almost as if highlighting extreme examples of rape and talking about how to protect oneself from them (stranger rape in a dark alley with a heaping helping of battery, drink spiking), and minimizing others (spousal rape, child rape, failure to obtain consent, rejecting withdrawal of consent, other means of coercion) is a feature of rape culture… Fascinating.
Tony. we disagree fundamentally. I’ve never considered myself a victim when I got cat called. Its just mildly irritating. After all, I happily had friends over when 3 well muscled and shirtless men were relaying my neighbours drive and we enjoyed the view. Don’t think they minded either. The problem here is the idea that men must always be the actors and women passive. Men must chase sex and women run away from it. Actually, its quite normal for men and women to find each other attractive and it should be normal for women to gawp at men. In fact we do. We just don’t make it obvious. If a man is intimidating or not taking no for an answer, this is different. But what happens then in a pub or a club or on the train? Other men make him stop. Hardly a rape culture. When there is no-one to help and a woman is sexually assaulted, police take it very seriously. They actually closed off half my town after a rape report and had police everywhere for a couple of days, dogs, forensics, a psychologist, hundreds of thousands of pounds were spent until it became clear the woman was mentally ill. (Not claiming false rape claims are common – I know they are rare. This was one of the rare occasions) Hardly a rape culture. Whereas in other parts of the world, it is common for men to be intimidating, women cannot count on support from other men. gang rapes occur regularly, the police don’t care and sometime the woman is lashed or forced to commit suicide or murdered by her family. This is what I describe as a full on rape culture.
Cue the hate because I don’t consider myself to be living in these circumstances and am actually more concerned about women who do.
Daz:
That does make a difference. A big one. With all the different police stations in one state alone, how rape victims are treated is a crap shoot here.
or yeah, what patrickG said at #300.
good point.
Oh, and because I missed this before, likely due to my eyes glazing over from the onslaught of Articulate White Mansplaining…
Jared Hansen @ 255
I can’t tell if you’re just so drenched in gender essentialism that your grossness here is incidental or if it truly was your intent, but luckily I can call you a transphobic connoisseur of buttocks haberdashery either way!
wait, are you married to Richard Dawkins, or is this some generational English thing?
you sound an awful lot like Richard does when he speaks of his abuse at the hands of his religious teachers when he was a child.
Iyéska (#301)
I think the problem is less Twitter and more that Helen Pluckrose has no fucking clue what the terms she’s using mean. Like “rape culture” and “victim blaming” and “patriarchy.” Or even “choice.”
Helen Pluckrose:
That’s great. What you don’t understand is that you don’t get to extrapolate your experience or your feelings onto everyone else. Personally, I disagree with you because microaggressions build up, and they cause a great deal of stress, and tend to eat away at you in very bad ways. I already have PTSD, I don’t need to deal with such microaggressions, nor do I need a reminder that I’m seen as an object, not a human being.
Fuck that noise and the horse it rode in on, Helen. Most of the people here have been willing to engage you in a discussion. If all you’re going to do is yell ‘haters!’, there’s no point at all in continuing that discussion.
Helen @310:
That’s ever so nice. One of the things I’m not doing is dismissing YOUR lived experiences. You, however, are doing that to the women who deal with microaggresions on a regular basis while living in a Rape Culture and a society that is deeply sexist. Your experiences are not as common as you appear to think.
But again, feel free to fuck off, since you love Dear Muslima.
She was not saying it was a woman’s job to avoid rape, she was saying she thought nail varnish was a good idea and that was how the woman saw it.
However, threats have now occurred and so I will leave even tho its actually your responsibility to not threaten people for having a different opinion.
You should leave before you find out the hard way just how little patience people here have for your aggressive cluelessness. People were way too charitable toward you at the start. The truth is, we’re all exactly the kind of feminist you’ve been whining about.
So for all of our sakes, piss off now and stick the flounce.
Helen the non-feminist
And? That’s like us deciding to not be atheists because we are sick of having to tell people that we don’t hate god.
Where the fuck do you live? Maybe you should distance yourself from feminism….
Oh my fucking Christ. That’s great. And what about the people who are? Are they just supposed to suck it up? Are they just whiners or people who just don’t have your Superior Force of Will, or some shit?
I cannot believe your utter inability and unwillingness to see the point of view of those “opposed” to the nail polish (most aren’t really opposed to it as much as saying that it is ineffective and a distraction, an illusion of control, and an impractical tool that will inevitably simply be used to blame rape victims for not being more “cautious”). And your willingness to throw other feminists under the bus. But it is perfectly in line with your seeming opposition to people “being victims”. Such a common yet odious idea, an excuse to strip yourself of any sense of empathy and a reason to never acknowledge unfairness and to never feel like you should help someone when they are down. It is convenient that way. And yet something that sounds like one of the more cruel and heartless Objectivist turds extruded from the mouth of Ayn Rand is apparently a mainstream cultural sentiment now. Fucking disgusting.
helen… go to bed. you sound like your privilege is taking control.
I swear, maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t she sound an AWFUL lot like Dawkins?
Dear Muslima, England is…
Rape Culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture
Rape Culture 101
https://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/rape-culture-101/
My oppression is not your thought experiment
https://proxy.freethought.online/brutereason/2013/04/03/my-oppression-is-not-your-thought-experiment/
Rape Prevention Aimed At Rapists Works
https://proxy.freethought.online/greta/2013/01/08/rape-prevention-aimed-at-rapists-does-work/
Predator Theory
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/03/25/predator-theory/
I am privileged! This is the point! I’m not denying it. I’m extremely fortunate and other women aren’t. Some in my country. More in others. I am more concerned about them.
Also ‘Doesn’t she sound an AWFUL lot like Dawkins?”
Not an insult.
Helen Pluckrose:
What threats? I did not threaten you once, Helen, I was remarkably patient with you. If this is your standard method of discourse, I can see why you’d end up with a pile of insults.
@Helen
Once again you appear to be focused on forcible rape of a woman by a man. That is but one way in which rape happens. A rape culture possesses a feature present in the argument you’ve made: glossing over all of the ways that rape happens. It’s deeply intertwined with sexism that makes it okay for dudes to shout at attractive women that they don’t even know. The act itself might be a minor annoyance on an individual, but how does it connect to the broader view of women in that culture? If men would catcall a women that they didn’t know would be okay with it or not, what other boundaries do they care for?
You know what, I’ll go one step further: humans might find other humans attractive. They might want to do the sex with other people. I don’t dispute that. I don’t clutch my pearls about sex. I’m actually sex-positive, believe it or not! This is such a fucking awful and abused straw-man that you’ve trotted out here. Cut it the fuck out.
Helen @319:
Are you going to mention the time again?
I don’t think it’s a very good idea. Yes, if women choose to use a particular tool in an attempt to reduce their chances of being raped, that’s their call. But as a means of reducing the overall incidence of rape, it’s not going to work, bc the people responsible for rape are the rapists. All the nail varnish in the world isn’t going to stop rapists from raping. Using it might mean that one woman doesn’t get raped-and yes that’s a good thing, but that more than likely means another one will, and that’s a bad thing. You’re overly focused on the nail varnish as if it’s some solution to rape. It’s not. But then you don’t seem to understand the concept of Rape Culture, so I’m not surprised that your focus is off.
and there you have it.
privilege speaks very loudly with the voice of ignorance.
When I speak of my experience, why should it imply everyone should feel the same? i am, after all, the one arguing that its OK to have a different feminist view. I’m not claiming that everyone has to have the same as mine but that its OK to have different ones. Clearly you all disagree.
No, Iyeska, you didn’t. I quoted the threat.
I haven’t read this whole thread, so all I’m taking from it is all M&Ms are poison. Too bad. I really used to like M&Ms.
@Helen #328
Hey, look, it appears you’ve erected an ad-hominem straw-man slapping itself in the face with a red herring.
Good god it’s the shitty response hat trick!
Helen Pluckrose 310
If they spot what’s happening. If they recognise non-physical intimidation for what it is and don’t mistake it for, for instance, a couple having an argument. If they consider themselves capable of handling any physical altercation which might occur. If they haven’t been brought up to see such behaviour as normal. Doesn’t add up to much of a safety net, does it?
And why are you concentrating on stranger-rape and date-rape? Most rapists are known to and trusted by their victims. Fifty percent or rapes happen in the victim’s home.
@Daz #332
@Helen
Answer this fucking question.
Tony
But as a means of reducing the overall incidence of rape, it’s not going to work, bc the people responsible for rape are the rapists. All the nail varnish in the world isn’t going to stop rapists from raping.
How do you know that? People who buy date rape drugs are organised rapists. It is entirely possible that sex offenders with forward planning skills will be deterred by a product which could detect their drugs and lead to their arrest. Why not find out? Why hold it back with outrage and cries of ‘victim blamers’ and possibly discourage other people from having other ideas that could protect women? Or men?
A. Noyd:
Yeah. I was nice and engaged for no reason.
Helen Pluckrose:
No, you aren’t. If you were concerned, you’d understand privilege,* and you’d understand rape culture, and you’d understand microaggressions. I’ve provided you with a lot of reading, Helen. It would be nice to think that, unlike Dawkins, you can click links, read, and understand points of view which are not your own.
*You seriously don’t fucking get it. At all. I’m mixed blood, female, bisexual, atheist, and childfree. Even given all that, I have a fucktonne more societal privilege than a whole lot of people, especially as I look very white.
Helen @323:
It would be if you acknowledged the harm in Dawkins’ views.
“Hey wimminz, stop complaining about the discrimination and oppression you’re facing in Western countries. I know it affects your life on multiple levels and manifests in a variety of ways from frequently aggravating microaggressions to being denied the right to bodily autonomy (which denies you your humanity). You may live in a society that normalizes rape and dismisses the experiences of rape victims but you don’t live in countries where you’re getting acid thrown in your face so you don’t have it all that bad. Now quit complaining. When you have it that bad, then you can speak up. Til then, I don’t want to hear you.”
That’s not someone you should want to be compared to. But since you do dismiss the experiences of many women, I can see why you don’t have an issue with the comparison.
Helen sez :
You really have an aversion to the whole “considering oneself a victim”, huh? Do you think you are inherently Better than someone who does consider themselves a victim due to catcalls? Because it sure as hell sounds like you do. It sounds like you are also willing to dismiss what other women view as sexual harassment, because you can personally deal with it.
What the fuck are you talking about? I mean….there is so much wrong here I don’t even know where to begin. It’s like you are a from a parallel reality or something. The Dawkinsverse.
Yeah, you just clearly don’t live in our universe.
Here is a dispatch from the world where the Just World Fallacy remains a fallacy:
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/02/28/revealed-why-the-police-are-failing-most-rape-victims/
So like Tony said, you’re pulling a “Dear Muslima”
Cue the angry criticism because you are dismissing the feelings of women, many of whom have been raped despite your alleged Not Rape Culture. Cue the angry criticism because you ignore the facts and substitute your own based on puffery and anecdote.
Just fuck off already.
@ Brandon
“I think the media will continue to relentlessly push this false dichotomy of radical “sides,” of which there are two. And I will continue to think it reflects reality.”
FTFY
@Helen #334
I failed HTML miserably but you get the idea.
I give. I eagerly await for Helen to return after she has slept so I can find out what the English upper class really thinks about empowering women to “avoid rape”.
hint to Helen: eagerly is being used sarcastically.
are you in fact Margot Leadbetter?
Helen Pluckrose:
No, you did not. A. Noyd did not threaten you in any way. Lying isn’t going to help. By the way, to properly quote someone, use:
<blockquote>Place Text Here</blockquote>, which will result in:
Helen @334:
What the hell are “organized rapists”?
Whatever…people have been coming up with “solutions” to rape for a very long time and the vast majority of them have targeted women.
Don’t drink.
Don’t walk alone.
Don’t go out at night.
Don’t be around strangers.
Don’t go to frat parties.
Wear more clothes.
Don’t flirt.
None of this stuff works because women are not the ones responsible for rape. They cannot control the actions of rapists. Rape happens bc rapists rape. To minimize the incidence of rape, you need to target the people who are responsible. Not the potential victims.
You’re placing a lot of stock in a product that has no evidence for its efficacy. Looked at in light of other rape reducing efforts that target women, rather than rapists, I see no reason that *this* one will magically work to reduce the incidence of rape, where all the other methods failed.
I swear, Helen reminds me of suburban rich whites in the US who talk about how there is no problem with racism in America.
Yes, rapes happen at home. I am not sure what you want me to answer about this? I’m not claiming rape doesn’t happen or that its not a serious concern. I’m talking abt stranger rapes and date rapes because that the subject – nail varnish, rape alarms etc, remember? But people got furious at the suggestion and said it was victim blaming? I disagreed?
Thirding the request for you to answer this question Helen.
Jesus. I’ve had enough rape apologetics from Helen for the night. Seriously angry now, so I’m going to bow out for now. Back in the morning.
Tony. I am not claiming to have found the solution to rape. I’m suggesting we keep as many options open as possible for preventing them. Nail varnish won’t help rapes at home. I agree.
No, Helen, nail varnish is not actually “the subject”. Magical nail varnish that detects a whopping two date rape drugs is not “the subject”. Nor are the handful of feminists who are too vocal in their concerns about it. It is just your hobby horse. Your obsessive pet cause. Your outrage of the moment. I am fairly certain most of us are ambivalent on “the subject”. But on your apparent disdain for ANY form of someone identifying themselves as a victim? We have a far more clear-cut opinion.
Helen Pluckrose!
You have not answered how this helps in the case of alcohol loading, which is the favoured tactic. You need to answer about rapes which happen in the home, not just to women, but to men and children because that would demonstrate a working knowledge of rape culture.
Fuck, but you’re irritating.
You are familiar Helen Pluckrose.
Have you commented here under another name?
Who are these people? Are you suggesting they’re “sex offenders” in some essential way? If not, how did they become sex offenders? Should they or the culture in which they operate be the target of any social action?
*Are you suggesting that they’ll be deterred from assaulting altogether? If not, do you see the problem?
Iyéska @342:
I think this is what Helen meant by “threats have now occurred.
Her #319:
She’s quoting A. Noyd @302. The “before you find out the hard way”. Which is not the threat she thinks it is.
Helen it’s not a threat. You’re being told that your dismissive attitude towards Rape Culture and Sexism has pissed people off, so no more niceness. This is a rude blog, and you’re being very shitty, so there’s no need to be civil with you any longer.
Iyéska @347:
Be well my friend.
Nail varnish isn’t likely to help prevent rapes at all. Consider the scenario I already provided with your hypothetical forward-thinking
sex offenderrapist (because, again, fuck your euphemisms).Helen Pluckrose #345
Just how paranoid do you want to be as you go through life? Because the only way in which the usual “preventative” measures will be in any way effective is if you are constantly suspicious of every man you come into contact with, and never, ever trust any of them. Ever. Because most victims know and trust their rapist.
If you want to use magic nail-varnish, go ahead. But please don’t try to pretend that it does more than provide a bit of a confidence-boost. It doesn’t even work against the best and most easily-available date-rape drug; alcohol.
Goodness, Iyeska, I don’t have all those solutions. I’m in favour of working on law, language, culture and practical forms of protection and keep finding solutions. I think its very unlikely that any one thing will solve the whole problem.
No, I have never commented here before.
I am using the term ‘sex offender’ because its not only rape we need to be concerned about but any kind of sexual offence. Or violence of any kind.
Daz, I agree. I just didn’t like feminists calling a rape survivor a victim blamer because she felt more confident with it and asked them not to discourage it.
Well I guess we know why Helen really plopped herself into this thread.
She already said that she didn’t take “you sound like Dawkins” as an insult right? Well that’s because she is a Dawkins sycophant. She’s retweeted a few items of his (or items that he has also retweeted) just in the past day or two, including this comment defending Dawkins’ “just sarcasm lulz” tweet after his disappeared “Real Rape Culture” tweet:
https://twitter.com/explodingjudas/status/510348024443588608
Also: her first post was exactly as random as it seemed. IT was just a copy and paste job that she had previously written
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1s9j3q5
Oh Helen *sigh*
We have this awesome thing called statistics. Feel free to look up the annual stats on rape from the FBI and the DOJ. Most rapes are perpetrated by acquaintances, relatives, dates, people they trust. I’m assuming you don’t dunk your special fingernail with the special polish in everything you eat and drink while with a friend or relative right? And of course, that leaves out matters of physical force now doesn’t it?
But even aside from that, I don’t believe you. I mean just in general. All these conversations you claim you’ve had….nope, don’t believe it. I think you’re lying. Hell, at this point, don’t believe you’re a woman either.
Helen Pluckrose (#319)
That wasn’t a threat, you undrained abscess. You started out with the wrong impression of this blog and its feminists because several commenters didn’t catch on to the depths of your idiocy quite fast enough and were sympathetic at first. “The hard way” refers to getting your shitty, ignorant comments torn apart by those people (and others) now that you’ve revealed just how terrible your beliefs are. In other words, exactly the the sort of treatment you’ve been whining about from the start (albeit in rather more self-aggrandizing and self-pitying terms). Which, if it bothered you as much as you pretend, you could have avoided by going away.
Which is it, then?
Anteprepro
I do NOT have disdain for anyone calling themselves a victim! I have the deepest sympathy for them and want them to have all and any options open at their disposal. Just because I don’t have the right to consider myself a victim and i am not going to lie and claim to have been victimised, does not indicate a lack of concern for victims. It indicates the opposite. Its not about me just because I have the same genitalia as them. ‘Woman’ is not a victim but ‘women’ are and its those women who should have the choice about their own safety.
It seems as if you are all trying to make me have beliefs that I don’t have. My entire point is that women should have choice. We don’t all have to feel the same way. Yes, I am privileged that I have never been made to feel this way. I know that. I know its a great deal to do with being white and middle class and in England. i think its important to acknowledge my privilege and that other women are not so fortunate. (Yes, some of them are white and middle class)
You seem to want to point out my privilege as an insult but at the same time, take it away and insist that all women are equally vulnerable.
@ Helen
Especially the way you said “goodness” up there. What, is that what you assume women talk like? Is that how your Grandma talks? I call troll. Just my instinct of course; could be wrong, but that’s what I think….”Helen.”
Salty? ????
I don’t think we should wait for rapists to realise its wrong.
People who buy date rape drugs have planned ahead.
Oh are you not going to lie and claim to have been victimized, like all the other women keep doing? “Helen”?
Wombat., there aren’t any statistics on how many rapes, date rape detecting nail varnish could prevent. It hasn’t come out yet. It may be useless. Let women choose and we’ll see.
I don’t care if you think I’m a man. I’m not.
Do elaborate, by all means. That’s really vague.
rabidwombat, stop that. Right now. RIGHT FUCKING NOW.
You don’t get to use someone’s gender presentation against them. Period. Shove that somewhere unpleasant, maybe write it on a bunch of Lego and strew them on your carpet for a reminder.
Seriously. Cut it the fuck out.
Wombat. You are making me say things I don’t say. I do not claim that other women are lying. I am quite sure they are not.
And that solves what for all the other, highly more likely types of victims, who weren’t raped after they went to a bar? Hmmmm “Helen”?
Rabidwombat @360:
Not only that, but how is that nail varnish supposed to benefit children and youths under the age of 21?
Another problem with the whole nail varnish as a solution to rape is that even if a woman dips that special finger in her drink and realizes there’s a drug (other than alcohol) in there, what’s she going to do? Tell the doorman? The bartender? The owner? Call the police? We live in a rape culture where women who have been raped are routinely dismissed and not believed. I can only imagine how it’s going to look for a woman who hasn’t been raped to go to the authorities and say “Look at my finger. He was going to rape me.”
Helen
The subject of the OP is the complete and utter cluelessness of Richard Dawkins on the subject of feminism. You are doing a bang on representation of Dawkins. (not a compliment)
Um, nobody in this thread said that those things are victim blaming per se. They are trying to get you to understand that putting the onus for rape prevention on the rape victim is victim blaming.
Yes, but your reasoning is very poor. Please read the links that have been provided and sleep on it.
@369 Fair enough. I apologize.
Anteprepro. Yes, I have said that I am not insulted to be considered to share Dawkins views and that is a previous post,
@Helen
You seem to be missing the point entirely about the nail varnish being a pile of rubbish that will serve to stop rape via surreptitious drugging. It will not help prevent the vast majority of rapes that occur. You claim to have the interests of the vulnerable in mind, but it does the vulnerable no service to promote a means of self-protection that is not at all likely to protect them from rape in most circumstances. That is at the heart of our objections. It’s security theater. It’s guns for self defense. There’s already a real solution here: changing the way society views rape. To whom rapes happen, and by whom they’re committed. Everything else is a band-aid.
Helen @370:
No, you’d just rather dismiss their experiences as being “not all that bad”. You may not claim they’re lying, but you don’t seem to care about the sexism they’re dealing with. Way to care about women.
OK, I’m gone. You’re just going to claim I mean things I don’t mean and I mean exactly what I have said. This is pointless.
From Wikipedia:
Rohypnol:
It’s rare. It’s rare even in the stranger-rape situation, which is itself a small subset of overall sexual assault.
The objection I have is the commercial material claiming that these materials are “rape prevention” oriented. There’s only one thing that prevents rape: not being near a rapist who wants to rape you. Since there is no way of doing that with any gadget or varnish or list of places or people to avoid, saying that it is in any way “preventing rape” is flat-out fraudulent. At the very best, it results in rape displacement. And I’m not interested in a ‘solution’ that leads to someone else taking a rape that I managed to deflect. Wouldn’t be my fault, but I wouldn’t be happy with that solution.
Tony. NO, I AM NOT. Everyone’s experience is what they experience it to be, including mine!
Helen:
Please, tell me, what are children under the age of 17 supposed to do to prevent their own rapes? They can’t legally drink, so the nail varnish will be of no use.
Daz (#356)
Except she’s also scornful of women who are suspicious of men. That’s what the whole poisoned M&Ms things was about. She’s poo-poohing a variation on Schrodinger’s Rapist. (Without understanding it, of course.)
Helen
Your words seem to say otherwise:
“I’ve never considered myself a victim when I got cat called. Its just mildly irritating.”
“I don’t believe myself to living in an oppressive patriarchy.I am not a victim of anyone”
That sounds to me like someone using “victim” as an insult. With the implication of “playing victim”, the implication that victims are being sulky and should “get over it”.
Oh my word. So you want me to believe that all of those instances of you bringing up how you are not a victim, in the context of dismissing the patriarchy, rape culture, cat calling, etc., that you were really just saying how you are Privileged? No, I’m sorry, you are just being dishonest here. You were not saying merely that you haven’t been victimized: you were using your lack of feeling “like a victim” to establish “facts” about your society and to dismiss the significance of common concerns that other women have. It’s a little early to try rewriting history, Helen.
That’s great. How is that consistent with you dismissing the existence of patriarchies and rape culture based on your own personal experience and nothing more?
With Logic of this quality, I’m starting to wonder if Helen might actually be Dawkins himself. Or at least a relative.
Helen Pluckrose #358
False confidence in an unsafe situation is not a good thing to be promoting. Constantly shifting the focus on to the victim’s ability to avoid being raped, when that ability does not, to any meaningful degree, exist, is morally repugnant.
Because this conversation is not a one-off. It’s not just a matter of “let’s discuss avoidance this one time.” The weight is almost always put on avoidance. Almost, you might say, as if a large number of people wish to avoid talking about things like making sure of consent and all those other things that mean men might actually have to take some responsibility to avoid raping someone.
@ anteprepro
That’s exactly what I was wondering. I should of expressed it better though.
And now I realize that the last joke might be in bad taste considering the context of earlier comments. The intention of the joke had nothing to do with sex/gender and I apologize if it comes off as implying anything more than “they have the exact same piss poor reasoning and reading comprehensive when it pertains to social justice”.
yeah, that’s the problem. you meant exactly what you said.
…and what you said was ignorant, stupid, and admittedly born out of pure privilege.
pointless indeed. It’s quite clear you understand women EXACTLY as well as Dawkins does, and you’re proud of it!
sad.
@Helen 367
We don’t need statistics on how many rapes special nail polish will prevent. We have statistics on the overwhelming number of rapes committed that have nothing to do with strangers, or drinking in a bar. So we can already extrapolate that it won’t prevent ANY of those rapes, which are the majority.
rabidwombat: The key thing is to just keep our missteps in mind and avoid mistakes in the future. Which, back to the original topic of the post, is exactly how we can tell that Dawkins is fucking terrible, because he outright refuses to correct himself. Decent people listen to others when they are being told that they are stepping on people’s toes and walk more delicately. While the Dawkinsites try to talk over them, walk off, come back smirking, and try to step harder the second time.
Helen @380:
You must think we can’t scroll up and read your prior comments.
This, from you @ 284:
Is you dismissing the sexism and microaggressions of women because they aren’t as extreme as what other women experiences.
Catcalling is an example of sexism. I don’t know anyone that claims it’s as bad as getting acid thrown in your face, but it is sexism and it does affect women. Catcalling is related to related to extreme misogyny because it exists on a continuum of misogynistic behavior.
*Also*, your references to a “full on rape culture” are dismissive of the fact that the US *and* the UK both are steeped in Rape Culture. You have a poor understanding of Rape Culture.
Add to *that*, by claiming that some countries don’t have a “full on rape culture”, you dismiss the fact that women in those countries have to deal with being raped, not believed, having to continue working with their rapist, having to continue going to school with their rapist, having to continue living with their rapist, seeing their rapist in church, seeing their rapist NOT face justice, and so much more. You dismiss the experiences of women living in cultures where rape is normalized bc to YOU, it’s not a rape culture if it doesn’t measure up to your standards.
I can’t stress enough: FUCK YOU.
Thank you anteprepro and Catie. I realized as soon as it was pointed out. Sorry!
@Tony! I wonder where she thinks this “legitimate” rape culture is?
I am taking on board everyone’s concerns about the nail varnish. I am still suggesting each woman make up her own mind. I keep getting drawn back in here by claims I mean things I don’t mean, so I am going to summarise my position.
I supported a young woman saying she thought the nail varnish was a good idea. I got called a victim blamer and a rape apologist.
I supported another woman saying she enjoyed a BDSM relationship. I got called a rape enabler.
I asked for examples of misogyny in atheist groups so I could help deal with them. I got called a victim blamer.
I came here and said this and have been called all sorts of things (including an undrained abscess) and told to fuck off a lot.
I don’t like the way current feminism is portraying victimhood as a universal female experience when it is not. I am just one example of a woman who does not feel victimised. My acknowledgement of this in no way indicates that I think other women’s experiences of being victimised are false or overstated or deserving of anything less than the greatest sympathy, activism and support.
I don’t like the way current feminism has used analogies to portray men as a danger group who must all be regarded with the utmost suspicion ( m&ms) If we think cultural conditioning has power, we should certainly not keep equating male with aggressor and female with victim (whilst taking very seriously the problem of male aggressors and female victims as well as female aggressors and male victims)
I do think there is a concern about some strains of current feminism and I think Richard Dawkins is right to think so and say so.
The end.
Oh look.
http://animalnewyork.com/2014/date-rape-drug-detecting-nail-polish-wont-work/
You know, this drug detecting nail polish strikes me like Lisa Simpson’s tiger-repelling rock, or like the TSA cracking down on water bottles and scouring every shoe: Ineffective solutions to problems you will probably never have. And I guess the thing is we are so used to preparing ourselves for unlikely catastrophes that we don’t quite realize that, sometimes, it just ain’t practical. The chances aren’t high enough and the prevention isn’t effective enough to be worth the cost.
@ Helen
You continue to insist someone, somewhere is trying to tackle women who want to use this nail polish, and wrench it from their hands. Hasn’t happened. Never will happen.
citation needed
I don’t get how anyone can’t see the reality of the situation here. We all have the common goal of wanting to reduce (or preferably eradicate) the problem of rape. So, let’s apply some basic problem solving skills, shall we?
Step one – identify the problem.
The problem is that people are being raped, that is having their boundaries and consent ignored in a sexual context.
Step two – identify the cause of the problem.
The cause of the problem is that people are choosing to ignore the boundaries and consent of other people.
Step three – identify possible solutions that directly target the cause of the problem.
We must necessarily target the problem – which of course is either a lack of knowledge about proper consent and personal boundaries, or a lack of respect for the same. So, we need to teach people to both acknowledge -and- care about those things. Secondarily, we need to target and correct even minor problematic behaviours that indicate that someone has a lack of care or understanding of consent/boundaries.
Step four – would the proposed solution solve the problem?
Yes. If everyone was both aware and respectful of others’ personal boundaries and consent to sexual activities, rape would cease to be an issue.
There. No gender politics, no victim talk, no pointing fingers. Just the only solution that actually fixes the root cause of the problem.
Rape prevention devices aren’t rape -prevention- devices, they’re rape deflection devices. Bandaids don’t solve the problem of heart attacks. The devices aren’t intrinsically bad, nobody’s saying that per se, but they are a solution to a different problem. If we lived in a universe where rapists were an uncommunicative, unintelligent, disembodied magical force that targeted people who failed to do specific things that prevented their appearance, rape prevention devices or rules would be effective at stopping rape. That is not the problem. The problem is people choosing to rape other people. To have any chance of success we have to target -that-.
I hit this:
and just threw up my hands. Skimming seems to indicate that Helen is quite attached to this idea, finds Dawkins the exemplar of all things anti-what-she-considers-feminism-to-be, and yeesh, I’m done.
I even linked Greta Christina’s blog, one of the most sex-positive blogs I’ve read with focus on the woman as active participant and I guess it was just irrelevant.
Helen, I’m so glad you haven’t experienced horrific things. People here have. You’re dismissing their experiences, not to mention the experiences of all the people who don’t comment here.
So, with the utmost respect, I invite you to fuck off.
Helen:
Welcome to Pharyngula.
So then you are allegedly just fine with “victimhood”, you just don’t like broadbrushing? Which is being done by…who exactly? How?
Forgive me if I don’t trust you to accurately relay someone else’s position from conversations you’ve had. You apparently haven’t even been able to relay us your own positions.
I’m sorry you don’t like facts and statistics. Yes, whatever, NotAllMen. But, yes, also, ADisproprotinatelyLargeAmountofMen in terms of general violence and sexism. And yes, SeveralMenIndistinguishableFromAnyOtherMan for the serial rapists, like good ol’ Shermer mentioned in the previous posts related to the latest from Dawkins’ Northern Rectum.
Not all women are victims. Not all men are victimizers. But most victimizers are men and most victims are women. That is really fucking important and your handwaving about “oh, but not ALL” doesn’t fucking help anything.
What the fuck are you on about?
And I’m sure you endorse his other tweets as well:
“The REAL rape culture: ‘All occurrences of sexual intercourse are rape unless there is certified evidence to the contrary.”
“Officer, it’s not my fault I was drunk driving. You see, somebody got me drunk.”
Why so coy? We know you came here to defend Dawkins. Well those are a key part of that particular chore. How heartily do you approve of the above messages, from a scale of “Richard Dawkins is my favorite human being on planet Earth” to “Dawkins is my beloved Lord and I am his most faithful servant”?
Helen Pluckrose
Hello, you linked the twitter conversation here, remember? I’ve read through that, this ^ is not what happened. Stop fucking lying. And you’re saying “feminists” when it just Allison Granted that called her that. Women are not monolith, Helen. Neither are feminists. Just because you don’t don the label anymore doesn’t mean you can join in on the smear campaign you claim to be so against.
Gauri Narayan said Allison Granted was attached to being the victim. Both women are survivors and yet you dismiss Allison Granted like she isn’t. You and her turned being a survivor into an insult, because she didn’t react, respond, and agree with you. Stop fucking projecting your bullshit beliefs onto us feminists. You’re the one treating survivors as less than. Or is it just the women of color in foreign countries you defend in order to protect your lily white rape culture?
Allison Granted was pointing how prevention tips aren’t going to solve anything and wants to deal with rape culture. Gauri Narayan told her to shut up because she could get girls raped by disparaging prevention tips like straws. Allison Granted says a woman can protect herself anyway she wants but points out that won’t stop rapist. Gauri Narayan twist that into “Anti-Protection Act” and you claim “feminists” want women to be passive and wait for women to change. On top of that Gauri Narayan drag Allison’s kid into by asking if she gave her daughter a cellphone, like that makes her a hypocrite, denies victim blaming and says “hope her kid doesn’t turn out like her”.
Then bemoaning how feminism used to be about solidarity and coming together while these new feminists are so uppity, so brash. God, you sound just like white privileged feminists with that #stopblamingwhitewomenweneedunity bullshit when black feminists point out racism by feminists. Well, you are so I guess that should come as no surprise.
And here we are, repeating the same fucking conversation. The problem, Helen is not with feminists, it’s with you. Thank fucking god you’re not a feminist anymore.
Because I’m such a hopeful motherfucker (snort): why humanism and egalitarianism need feminism
(Wasn’t there another article posted here recently that handles that same issue of why we should still be feminists? Or maybe a really good comment.)
Helen @392:
Citation please. In lieu of that, Just. Go. Away.
Did you know that I am very privileged? I have lived a boring middle class life while almost everyone else in my family struggled. Almost every woman in my family has been raped. Most by a male family member or family friend. The only female friends I have known well enough to talk about such subjects with, I know one was raped by her first boyfriend, another was abused by her parents because she was small and defenseless, and two living in the same household are regularly physically and verbally abused. My male family members my age? Nothing. Male friends? Nada.
How’s that for a fucking anecdote? “Not rape culture”, my ass. Your bleating opposition to “victimhood” is the reason why all of that above shit has been swept under the rug for fucking decades and why women I know and women I love have felt the need to suffer in silence and only whisper about the shit they have been through years fucking later, either when they can’t take it any more and when they finally, somehow, feel SAFE. Because that’s the problem here: This world is NOT SAFE. And no amount of dipping polished nails into wine glasses is going to fucking put a fucking dent in that problem.
Given her opinion of the M&Ms analogy, I’d hate to hear what Helen has to say about
Schrodinger’s Rapist.
well, it must be so then.
*rolleyes*
what an intractable git.
It just wouldn’t be a feminism thread without the protracted discussion about how “I used to be a feminist, but…”
Maybe we should just rehash Jeff Foxworthy’s routine and make a “You Might Be A Misogynist” album.
Ok, so we had Jared first.
Then Helen.
Who’s up next?
@ Tony:
*popcorn*
Keep in mind that you’re walking in an ongoing conversation. In that conversation, countless people have been in before you trying to promote victim-centered rape prevention measures as a way to divert responsibility from the rapists. Time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, and again.
You have only to thank the rape apologists for having poisoned the well for you.
Keep up the good work. As long as you’re fighting the good fight, who cares which label you adopt?
Helen Pluckrose:
I can’t relax, so…
That’s right interesting, Helen, seeing as your initial copypasta and subsequent posts have been wrapped around the theme of those feminists are terrible and mean to me, along with wow, you guys are mean and rude to me!
A person could get the impression that you’re making yourself out to be a victim, being so terribly persecuted by all the rude meanypants.
Anteprepro:
Yeah. Everyone here knows all this, but for the sake of Helen:
I was raped by a family member, at least once a week, from ages 3 years to 9 years old. This was known about, no one did anything to stop it.
When I was 16, I was coshed in a parking lot, bound, beaten, repeatedly raped, repeatedly strangled, and left for dead. I am one of three survivors of this particular rapist murderer. When I first went in for trial prep, the D.A., who was supposedly on my side, looked me up and down, then said “what the hell were you thinking, being out after dark, wearing a dress?”
When I was 18.5, at a friend’s house party, late night, I went to sleep on a couch. I was woken up in the morning by an acquaintance, who had his fingers in my vagina. When I pulled away, sat up and yelled at him, he said “I thought it would be a nice way to wake up!”
Rape culture, we’re drowning in it.
… said by someone who dislikes crying victimhood.
So yeah, about the actual topic:
I strongly dislike Richard Dawkins.
Someone above linked to this tweet: https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/510314159503065088 and I would like PZ to add it to the post because it’s much worse than anything he quoted from Dawkins. It’s clear, unapologetic victim blaming.
Also what Saad said:
Beatrice quoting Helen:
Oh FFS. What is with the histrionic drama? Fuck me, I’m tired of it, witch hunts, thought police, lynching, oh my!
Beatrice @409:
Oh that’s fucking rich!
Helen:
Can somebody explain this? I’ve never understood what exactly this means. Or how it supposedly manifests in “current feminism.” Is it anything at all but a way to discourage people who do feel like victims from speaking out?
Iyéska:
I never considered myself a victim when I got persecuted by rude meanypants. Its just mildly irritating.
If you don’t want to click on twitter links:
Radioactive Elephant @ 413:
Win.
yup, self justification FTW!
you see why she is SO much like Richard, who did the EXACT same thing?
it can’t be male privilege, it’s got to be upper class white English privilege that influences this horrendously self-convinced behavior, yeah?
like I said, to me it resembles watching middle upper class white suburbanites in the 80s tell me there is no racism in America. Clueless, but cock sure of themselves. Dunning Kruger at its finest, but you know they will never admit it.
I think arguing with Helen was directly on topic.
really!
Jared @ some number
I’m way late to the party on this and maybe it was already addressed but I just wanted to say:
WUT?!
Why. The. Fuck. is it unreasonable to expect a similar study to be done on male hormones on men if they’re done on women? What the fuck good do you think it is to study hormones in women in an effort to then say that women are better or worse than men at something, if you’re not also going to study men? Because don’t even try to convince anyone here that the point of figuring out that women are maybe worse at spacial reasoning when they’re menstruating isn’t to show that it really is a risk to hire women for certain fields because you’ll get uneven performance out of them. The only possible reason you wouldn’t also study hormone levels in men (or investigate whether it’s been done) is because you’re looking for confirmation of your biases and not to get at the reality of how things actually work.
What a waste. I squandered my goodwill on some git who can’t take criticism.
@ Ichthyic:
On that note, Helen’s thoughts on this thread have been made public, as tweeted here.
Presented without comment:
Sigh, non-borked link here, hopefully.
Wow, that was like an additional 120 comments relating to Helen alone since I was last here.
If this taught me anything it’s to be even more skeptical of people who complain that “feminists said X!”
I don’t know what Pluckrose is complaining about. It’s clear she got exactly what she came here for.
By the way, does anyone know the originator of her “feminism is portraying victimhood as a universal female experience” bullshit?
But then, you provided not one whit of academic evidence, say from Google Scholar, to back up your dismissal (not disagreement). So we dismissed your unevidenced opinion. Deal with that properly.
I hate both the “product of his time” as well as the “dementia” defense.
Because that’s what they are, defenses and excuses.
So, yeah, Dawkins isn’t exactly 30 anymore. Yes, when he grew up society was different. That means what exactly?
Here’s how I meassure somebody as a “product of their time”: against the progressives of their time. And Dawkins is well behind the progressive people of his own generation. He’ probably behind the progressives of the generation that came before him.
How do you call somebody who resists social progress? A conservative.
How do you call somebody who wants to roll back on social progress*? A reactionary.
Those are political opinions and positions, not excusable character flaws. They are not a sign of mental illness or dementia.
*As evidenced about his opinions about the bodily autonomy of women and the “value of people according to their net contribution to society”
Which leads me to the “dementia”: Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, whoever you are who makes that argument. My gran suffers from dementia. I’ve seen her mind wane over the last years, and it’s been an extremely painfull process for all those involved. She doesn’t know where she is anymore, forgets people she’s known for 15 years, forgets all the time that her husband is dead.
What didn’t happen was that she turned an asshole. That she became insensitive to the suffering of others. She’s in a nursing home atm, a place where there are people who are worse off than her, because they need to be spoon fed, or restrained because they’d hurt themselves. And still, with her mind gone so far, she’s still showing empathy and compassion for those people, for their misery. That’s because the fundamental core of her being is a kind, decent human being.
+++
Me, too, believe me, me too.
+++
Island Adolescent @227
Well said, well said indeed.
+++
strawman much?
how could you possibly feel you were explaining yourself to the army of strawmen you apparently thought you were arguing with?
it’s no wonder you gave up.
….
yikes.
I think that, if there is any good faith in her, Helen would be well advised to read this guest post over at Alex Gabriel’s – https://proxy.freethought.online/godlessness/2014/08/29/guest-post-i-was-raped-at-oxford-university-police-pressured-me-into-dropping-charges/
So there we have a woman who has been raped offering the police enough evidence to convict an entire regiment of the British Army – DNA evidence, medical evidence, witness evidence, photographic evidence, video evidence, evidence that the rapist was heard boasting about the event. You’d have thought this one was a gift for the police and the CPS but no! All that happened was pressure to drop the allegation.
That’s the real rape culture – alive and well among the ivory towers and within a couple of miles of the book-lined study of The Great Dawkins.
The “Rape Culture” Helen and her hero are fighting is a mythical beast, one against which nail polish has a magical power, apparently.
like I said… arguing with Helen was directly on topic. Same approach, same privilege, same strawman arguments, same refusal to understand the actual argument, same dismissal of disagreement, same twisting of the events to self justify when not arguing directly.
same.
the parallels are too striking to ignore IMO. Both Helen and Richard are cut from the same cloth.
I’m guessing someone who actually is English can identify exactly which class that is?
Wow, that exchange is about as nasty as things can get.
Accusing Allison Granted of putting her child into danger and accusing her of being bitter about being raped and tehrefore not able to discuss those issues objectively.
While reading her first posts I thought “hmmm, funny how she talks about so many conversations and what happened in them without ever providing a link, maybe that’s because she knows the evidence would not be in her favour”. It would be nice to be disappointed once…
Helen Pluckrose
as a feminist: Thank you!
I’m not English but I am a recovering Anglophile and I did live in the UK for a while. Her insistence that she’s just ‘middle-class’ strikes me as typical upper-middle-class defensiveness in the face of class divisions. Upper-middle-class generally means an extremely comfortable stockbroker-belt (at least) or at the higher levels a rural-idyll upbringing in a village where the family has been leading citizens for generations, with father in a City profession and with mother pointedly not in paid employment but who is prominent in local charity works, and a boarding school education at the same school her mama and grandmama went to.
Giliell:
And Helen defended her with:
The woman said that Allison Granted was putting young girls in danger by saying that to tell anyone that they aren’t doing their “job” by not doing all they can to avoid being raped is like saying a flower should have avoided getting mowed.
That’s a weird way to be only saying “I think the nail varnish was a good idea.”
After seeing that, and seeing how she’s characterizing the conversations here… I’m wondering how that discussion on BDSM she mentioned really went down.
Helen Pluckrose
Ahhhh, thr True Victim Card™
Just get the official Helen Pluckrose Approval™ and you’re allowed to feel whatever she specifically deems appropriate for you to feel. You can never feel too little, but easily to much.
Apart, of course, from those women who experience victimisation when you say they don’t have a right(!) to consider themselves victims.
First step: Stop women from talking about what they experienced at the hands of men because they have no right to call themselves victims unless they are the victims of the famous “legitimate rape”.
Second step: No second step, shut up.
Tony
We also know that cat-calling is often followed by more aggressive behaviour up to and including assault. One time I got cat-called the guy also followed me to the dark car park (I later got told by one of my best friends, the only person I ever told in meatspace, that it was my fault for parking there) and tried to get at me as I tried to get to the car. Thankfully I made it there first.
But heaven forbid that I feel victimised by that. Heaven forbid that I get scared by men catcalling me just because one of them probably wanted to rape me (how do I know he didn’t want to ask the time? Misandry!)! Heaven forbid that any other woman who knows my story and stories like mine, stories you can read in newspapers every other day feel threatened by men catcalling them! Heaven forbid that we ask men that they should stop that shit!
Doesn’t “To pluck a rose” mean to fuck a woman?
Well, that name fits. According to Helen women should always be on guard against men who rape but also aware of what horrible misandrists that makes us for being suspicious of men.
She is also blaming sexism on feminists because she thinks saying that men often victimize women is what causes men to victimize women. In short, women are victimizing themselves by not shutting up about men victimizing them. If we’d just live quietly paranoid lives, not bothering anyone about being raped, catcalled, abused or harassed, men would just stop seeing themselves as predators and stop raping us. Women would all be miraculously empowered…as far as anyone would know. In other words, we are to shut the fuck up and act like everything is OK, while we go through life doing everything we can to avoid being raped that doesn’t bother teh menz.
Yeah, I’m fine with Helen not calling herself a feminist.
Nobody seems to have pointed this one out, so I will.
Being aware that enough men are sexual predators who do not care about a woman’s consent and that those men look just like every other man is nothing like thinking all black men are criminals. One is a fact. The other is racist bullshit.
Also, there is no such thing as a verbal lynching. Lynchings are real things that happen to real people. Being told to fuck off because you are monumentally wrong and obnoxious is not like being tortured, mutilated and then hung by the neck until dead in front of a crowd of cheering bigots.
I wonder if Jared would also say,”If white people get to have white skin, black people do too?” As a sarcastic response to people saying racial equality was a worthwhile goal.
Jared, you’re peen does not make you special or smart. I do not need one of my own to deserve equality. You’re body parts are not the “norm” and mine are not strangely exotic in ways that make me undeserving of equality. Yes, out bodies should be equally studied and understood. You didn’t give us an example of the things women just are not as good at as men because you have none. All you have are your sexist presumptions and even though you have a cock instead of a pussy, that doesn’t make your presumptions facts.
That you treat the idea of boys in dresses or girls with penises as jokes shows just how clueless you are. Yes, if girls are allowed to wear dresses, then boys should be too. Yes, boys can have vaginas and girls can have penises. Neither boys or girls should be forced to wear dresses or pants.
That is what equality looks like and if you don’t like it…good. I don’t give a single solitary shit about your sad manfeels.
Wouldn’t a lot of this conversation be more likely to have some kind of effect on this thread at the RDF?
Should Richard Give Up Twitter and Retreat to His Ivory Tower?
I’m still struggling to understand how someone can both endorse a method for detecting date-rape drugs and deny that there’s a rape culture. Is the fingernail polish meant to be ironic or something?
Well, Dawkins gets a new low, just when you thought that wasn’t possible.
Ladies, if you get raped while drunk you just have to lieve with it, cause if you can’t remember exactly what happened you can’t testify, so, if you drink you’re obviously agreeing to be raped, which is an oxymoron, of course, but that’s what you get.
Link
I was part of the diaspora when the original RDF web site got shut down. I was an RD fan boy but that was a wake up call. Nevertheless, his good works are still good. The Selfish Gene and The Magic of Reality are both excellent works.
Argue the ideas, don’t argue the person.
The ideas about feminism are confused. I see someone who is trying to call out what he sees as eroneous thinking without having really done the exploration first. If he starts getting it right later, well great. Do I think he can? I don’t know.
For me all it took was to be asked to alternate between the use of “he” and “she” as a pronoun in my writing i.e. “If the user of this heavy equipment has a licence she may take it out to the target area”. That wasnearly 30 years ago and it made a huge difference. Maybe RD should try that.
DanDare @439
Do you see anyone here not arguing the horrid ideas and attacking Dawkins? Also, note this is not the first, or even 31st time he has been an asshat about feminism. He retweets Hoff Sommers for christ sakes. How long to we give him a pass for being actively harmful because of his good works. He is not going to get it, because he doesn’t want to get it.
DanDare @ 439
If a person acts like a callous asshole, I’m going to call them a callous asshole. Richard Dawkins has been acting like a callous asshole his entire fucking career. At some point, it’s perfectly fucking reasonable to decide that someone repeating the same harmful pattern of behavior over and over is malevolent rather than clueless.
Is Helen seriously suggesting that it’s entirely possible that rapists will think, “Well, she sure foiled my plans with that handy nail polish, guess I’ll give up raping, then”? That they’ll be deterred not just from using that method but from raping people entirely? That’s not “entirely possible.” It’s patently ridiculous.
No, of course not. The rapist will think “hey, that woman over there isn’t wearing nail polish, I’ll take her”.
At which point we’ll get to “why weren’t you wearing that nail polish???”
Or not, because they don’t bother with illegal drugs anyway and just make sure you’re drunk.
goaded @436:
What effect are you thinking? If it’s “convince RD that he’s wrong”, you can probably give that one up.
I don’t even care about convincing RD he’s wrong. I just want him to retire from Internet and giving any kind of public statements unrelated to his field.
Just… go away.
Further to Tony’s 444, if you think that’s a good idea, goaded, what’s stopping you from taking your own advice? I don’t give enough of a shit about Dawkins to bother, but if that’s important to you, you already know where to go, since you posted the URL.
::Reads Beatrice’s #445 and heartily agrees::
Almost forgot: rabidwombat, thanks for hearing me so well above, and I think it was anteprepro who jumped in to also clarify/apologise about their comment.
Sorry to have leapt on it so sharply; I know you both to be onside, but it’s somewhat triggering for me to see that kind of…well, usually I’d call it bullying…in action. Similar language has preceded some of the worst cissexist abuse – physical and verbal/emotional – I’ve endured. I appreciate your being willing to hear it through my anger, and to eschew tone policing while doing it.
Sorry for not producing quotes or comment #s, on my phone and having bad pain day.
Don’t want to derail, but did want to acknowledge your quick and gracious responses.
If only women had as much experience with being treated like women as Richard Dawkins did, they’d see why he’s right and they’re wrong about feminism.
Um, I mean if only women were smart enough to understand their experiences as well as Richard Dawkins does, they’d understand why he’s the superior feminist.
Drat! I mean that if only women could think as clearly about their experiences as Richard Dawkins does, they’d finally get what actual equality means!
*growl* Look, I don’t think we can have a meaningful conversation about feminism until we begin be agreeing that Richard Dawkins is right and anyone who disagrees with him is therefore wrong! Once we agree on that, then we can discuss feminism!
Sheesh!
(Note: The above post may contain sarcasm.)
Ideas don’t float out there in some nebulous platonic cloud of “idea-space”. Ideas are expressed by people, and HOW they are expressed is a behavioral CHOICE of the person expressing the idea.
In this case, it is more than just that the idea is wrong, but that it has been expressed in a manner that is deliberately inflammatory and insulting. It betrays in Dawkins not only erroneous thinking, but a monumental failure of compassion and basic human decency. He could not more effectively by triggering victims of abuse if he tried. This causes real harm to real people.
He did not have to express these ideas in this fashion, using these specific words or phrases. And the man who coined words and phrases like “meme” and “theorum” was fully capable of expressing these ideas in a different, less harmful way. That he did not do so reflects a deli erase CHOICE on his part.
And this aspect of it has nothing to do with the ideas, and everything to so with the person. It is also arguably the more harmful aspect than simply the wrongness of the ideas.
And when the person behaves in this manner, the person must be called out on it.
Giliell (#433)
Because they have no right and because talking about men as aggressors is what turns men into aggressors. Never mind that cultural conditioning doesn’t work just by mentioning a correlation between men and aggressive entitlement to women’s bodies. Never mind there are so many other cultural institutions telling boys and men that they can’t help their entitled aggression and it’s something to be proud of anyway. Never mind that feminists are saying men can and must do better. No, feminists make men—poor, poor men—into rapists by saying men rape, and then they make themselves the targets of those rapists by saying they’re victims and forgetting to wear their anti-rape nail polish.
Or what Jackie said in #434.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Jackie (#434)
Yeah, here’s what I wrote out about that before deciding not to engage Pluckrose so directly:
Maybe I should have posted it earlier for everyone else, so it didn’t go unchallenged for so long.
Totally OT but addressable only in this thread: last night I posted a comment as # 179, which now shows up as # 180. Trying to track what was inserted to change the number, I see a string of similar miscounts, the earliest being that Iyéska @ # 26 replied to Andrés Diplotti @ #22, which now has apparently become # 23. Prior to that, I don’t see any comments referencing comment numbers, so can’t track the discrepancy further.
Only embertine’s # 3 struck me as “didn’t see that before” when scanning the early comments (& I don’t trust my memory very far in this case). Did the b-word there (otherwise used here only in the OP as part of an anti-feminist’s ‘nym) trigger a blocking filter, later released by our esteemed host (or a high-ranking henchperson) and bumping each comment back a step? (If so, this must have happened fairly recently: HappyNat @ # 440 answering DanDare @ # 439 is the first instance of a non-shifted numerical citation).
Anybody have a better hypothesis?
Yikes. What was that drivel from Helen Pluckrose? Possibly this is overkill, as she’s been addressed at length, but this got my goat:
This is what feminism is *against* – gender roles in all aspects of life, including sex/dating. The problem is that you can’t just wave a magic wand. You have to actually address the behaviour that supports these gender roles – including men feeling like they are entitled to approach/proposition women in all circumstances, regardless of the woman’s feelings.
And so did this:
What world is she living in where men regularly and reliably step in when fellow men are doing such things? Just ludicrous.
Richard Dawkins = Henry Higgins.
Last story I heard regarding this was of a man who called out a bunch of other men catcalling women. For his trouble he was punched in the face, knocked unconscious, and sent to the hospital with a brain injury.
And the usual suspects on the internet blamed him, saying he should have known that calling out the behaviour of another man was bound to cause a fight.
Well at least this time the victim blaming was equal opportunity.
Monitor note:
galin banev,
Calling someone a retard is not acceptable here. Knock it off or fuck off.
————-
I really wanted to address your substantiated argument, but you made none. Way to go for someone accusing others of trolling.
Fuck off.
galin banev
I hate to make you sad, but Shermer is past his due date with this. Yep, time ran out on him, can’t file that lawsuit anymore
Giliell @458, that’s a flat-out lie.
I don’t believe you hated that at all.
454. galin banev,
Wouldn’t that be pretty much an admission of guilt? If Shermer were to go after anyone, it would make sense for it to be Buzzfeed. They posted far worse allegations, and they reach a far larger audience, so they must have done far more damage to Shermer’s image than this insignificant blog ever could. If Shermer sued PZed it would be to bully him.
A. Noyd:
I can’t pin down where it started, but it is all over the place. I did come across this: http://www.wikihow.com/Be-a-Feminist-Without-Displaying-Your-Victimhood-Complex
galin:
Fuck you you ableist fuckstain.
Galin’s comment @454 is utterly bizarre. It doesn’t even engage the points PZ brought up. Even if one thinks PZ is wrong, that comment was utterly vapid. There was no substance to it; it was pure invective. I mean, I’m not a person to shy away from insulting people (both Jared and Helen deserved buckets of invective), but the vast majority of time, my comments serve a point other than being a big meanie (and I have a commenting history that shows that I’m not prone to just lobbing insults). Galin’s served absolutely no purpose.
@galin banev
Wow, what a zing. I am truly floored by your insight.
Picture that said with Brain’s (from Pinky and The Brain) tone of voice for maximum effect.
Sili @460:
I took that comment to be a reference to the Grenade thread and the lawsuit Shermer filed against PZ.
Yeahhh, that’s not really an accurate depiction of the nebulous title of “radical feminism” in the 60s and 70s. When radical feminists come up in the literature they’re usually connected with the ideas of Mary Daly or Shulamith Firestone or Valerie Solanas, etc.. This is radical-cultural feminism; the kind that breeds TERFs and the like. We’re talking about goddess mythology, gender separatism, test tube babies, all-PIV-sex-is-rape, and political lesbianism. And that’s not to say all of it was like this. Radical feminism was inventive and imaginative. It contributed new ways of thinking about problems. And yes, it talked about problems, but not in any manner approaching the way it’s discussed now. What they didn’t do was provide a model for moving forward. What’s described in that excerpt is largely a product of the Third Wave, but certainly has roots in the radical feminism of old.
I think this is a distinction we should at least be aware of as feminists. Obviously, MRAs and anti-feminists don’t know any of this because they never bothered to investigate. They use “radical” as a pejorative and include the whole gamut of “weird” things like what I described above. I get that we’re trying to reclaim the word “radical.” That’s fine. But recognize that “radical feminism” carries connotations that (thankfully) almost no one actually advocates for.
I agree, Jason, but I don’t think we get to No True Scotsfeminist our way out of this.
I loathe the TERFs – my partner used to take my daughters to Michigan, back in the early 90s, until I pointed out how much it hurt that they went to a festival that said I wasn’t a woman – but I don’t get to say “they’re not feminists, they’re radical feminists!” or disavow them from the movement.
I can disagree with them, strongly, and think their concepts rely on genital essentialism that in my view should be odious to feminists. I can’t say “they’re not feminists,” because that’s not their problem. Their problem is a category error on “who is a woman?”, but they believe, and work for (outside their transphobia) the radical idea that women are people. That’s the basis of feminism, to me.
And I don’t think we’re in the place of policing who gets to be a feminist, in any case. Hold the core belief – that women are people and have bodily autonomy – and I don’t see who’s got the authority to say you’re not a feminist.
The TERFs are one brand of radical feminist. There are others, and plenty of them, who claim the label now, and again, I’m not going to be the one to tell them they’re not allowed, especially if they want to reclaim it from the TERFs by being radical and not cissexist (I say that cause I know they HATE being called cis, those cis TERFs do, in their cissexist way as cis people).
Jason:
Yeahhh, it’s not the ’60s and ’70s right now. (And some of us were around in the ’60s and ’70s, y’know). I expressed my thoughts on radical feminism @ 17, and it remains the same. Is there some point to you going about, trying to make sure that everyone is wearing the correct label according to Jason?
Tony:
That doesn’t work, because the thread was re-opened after PZ was en-lawyered, and as far as I know, it’s still open.
Caitie & Jason
I think the difference is that we are actually aware of the differences between different “brands” of feminism, about discussions and conflicts within feminism. I doubt that Dawkins and those who want “equality feminism” have read any feminist literature besides some quote-mined Dworkin and Solana.
Giliell @ 470, I think Dawkins and much of the crowd who agrees with him are stuck on Hoff-Summers. As I mentioned in #461, I can’t pin down origins on the weirdness that was Helen, but it’s littered all over the net, often linked to Hoff-Summers, and the odd Feminism without victimhood, which I linked to. It’s all rather nebulous.
“Equity feminism” is the clap-your-hands-if-you-believe model of feminism. We just have to declare everyone is equal, and poof.
Iyéska
Yep, and that’s one person where the label “feminist” is definitely NOT correct. Her parading around “feminist” is like Republicans using MLK….
I was thinking that someone more qualified than I could explain to a different audience exactly what their objections to his latest tweets were, and why. Not to convince RD, but some part of his audience.
goaded @ 474:
I doubt you’ll find volunteers here, as most of the regulars were present for Dawkins’s Dear Muslima, and his subsequent plaint of “alright, I’ll re-consider if someone explains it to me, with no cuss words”, and many people took him up on it. Didn’t do a damn bit of good.
Right here, in this thread, we have a fine example of someone who helps comprise Dawkins’s audience, one Helen Pluckrose. Even if you have read all the comments, read them again, especially those involving Helen. Our commentary didn’t do a damn bit of good there, either. All that resulted was “oh hai, I was verbally lynched at Pharyngula!”
I present Mighty Dude Logic ™
Yep, that’s why women don’t do atheism and politics and stuff, because we really can’t intellectually keep up with this.
Also, he claims victory
Hmmm, came across this: http://conservativewoman.co.uk/laura-perrinsfeminism-sisterhood-victimhood/ – there’s a link to a Women Against Feminism facebook, but I can’t access that. From links I’m seeing, this conservative ‘feminism’ stance seems to trace mostly to the UK and Oz, with some pick up here in the States.
And this:
When did the feminist movement become the poster child for powerless women?
In the 60’s the feminist rallying cry was ‘I am woman hear me roar,’ yet today the movement seems to do a little less roaring, and a lot more crying.
Crying Foul
Crying Victim
Crying Sexism
It’s a crying shame laced with a lot of hypocrisy.
Feminism is supposed to be about the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men, leaving out the asterisk.
*Advocacy applies only for women who agree with our political agenda.
Advocacy does not apply to:
– The hysterical white suburban women standing in the way of Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s precious common core
– Juanita Broderick or Kathleen Willey who were subjected to Bill Clinton’s unwanted sexual advances
– Sarah Palin when attacked by Martin Bashir who said someone should defecate and urinate in Mrs. Palin’s mouth
– The women subjected to sexual harassment by Democrat Mayor Bob Filner
– The underaged girl at the center of an indictment against Joe Morrissey, a VA Democrat accused of taking indecent liberties with said minor
– Nor the Christian woman imprisoned in the Sudan for being a Christian
I could go on, but I have more faith in our readers than does the feminist movement.
I should probably get out and about more on the ‘net: http://womenagainstfeminism.tumblr.com/
Just throwing this out there, but nowhere in my previous comment did I say anything remotely approaching the policing of who is and who is not a feminist. What I did say was that we should be mindful of what terms we use because some terms are loaded with baggage we don’t intend to identify with. Thank you.
Giliell @ 470 got it. If you’re interested in what I actually said, her comment is a good place to start.
Stop Fem-Splaining: What ‘Women Against Feminism’ Gets Right
Aha! Finding Helen:
Jason:
I got your post just fine, thank you. Perhaps you didn’t get mine. Also, I really prefer people speak for themselves, and don’t indulge in the royal We.
goaded @ 474,
Let us start here. It will not be a full answer because I haven’t time to write a book but perhaps this is somewhere for you to start.
Dawkins is a year older than I, he lives in the same country and uses the same first language. He is also subject, while at home, to exactly the same laws as I am. His career has been been somewhat more spectacular than mine but let us remember that his first degree was in zoology and his doctoral thesis was on the pecking behaviour of the domestic chick. Let’s not forget when he wrote his best-selling The God Delusion he did it as a layman. All perfectly worthy but none of it conveys any expertise in psychology, criminology or the dynamics of social change. He has, in fact, been known to disparage anything which might be labelled a social science – even those fields of study which use numbers and sophisticated statistics.
Also he has no experience of being a women and he has always been adequately provided for so that he is ignorant of the choices poor or marginalised people have to make to survive, often the woman has to make and under pressure or threat.
Does this matter? Yes, it does for I suspect that the man is bored. He has discovered that he can provoke a reaction in the people he least understands by being or by pretending to be – I am unsure which – a reactionary, a sort of upper-class lout. He chooses a means of provocation which gains instant notoriety and makes it virtually impossible for his targets to respond effectively. Sounds like bullying? Yes, it does.
It is not that we have no answers or are ill-informed, let alone inarticulate. By Dawkins’ own choice we are pinned to the barn door with a pitchfork and then sneered at because with a tine through one one thigh we cannot immediately come up with a complete refutation of what he just said and all its underlying assumptions in exactly 140 characters. Then he invites all his unthinking acolytes along to sneer at us too.
This is not the behaviour of a gentleman. But see where you go from there, eh?
Not judging by your response. Sadly I’ve run out of time today for defensive trolls misrepresenting my statements. I prefer to fight MRA shitbags instead of allies. Tootles.
There’s a reason Shermer’s threatened lawsuit went nowhere. Because he has no legal ground to stand on, and all a trial would do is expose him even further as a rapist.
At the time of the joint statement with Ophelia Benson, Dawkins was shocked and horrified that people thought he approved of harassment of women.
Evidently, he wasn’t shocked and horrified enough not to give more cover and encouragement to the harassment of women. Whatever good might have come as a result of the joint statement has been irretrievably torpedoed, imo.
Iyéska (#461)
Good grief, that’s terrible. And if you follow those directions, how would you be able to call yourself any kind of feminist?! Since it’s a wiki, I’d bother to edit it into oblivion if I thought the edits wouldn’t be reverted nearly immediately.
And thanks for looking into this.
~*~*~*~*~*~
Tony (#463)
When we start getting comments like that, it usually turns out that the OP was linked to some dedicated anti-SJ community with the message that the OP is vile, vile criticism of certain Great Men. So, without even reading the OP, some members of the community flock here to take an indignant shit in the comments. The purpose is to drive the scourge of social justice from the atheism/skepticism community by territorially blanketing every corner of the community in pro-Great-Men turds.
tsk
Iyéska
You superduper meanie.
Chigau:
:laughs: That’s me. Going by Jason, I also get to be Superduper meanie defensive troll ally. Think it works? Ah well, Jason got to flounce out on his superiority, that’s the important thing.
PZ: First of all Christina Hoff Sommers is not anti-feminist. She simply criticizes the feminist movement for too often falsely accusing people, making negative assumptions about men, and other problems. It doesn’t mean every feminist is like that but it is disturbingly common. You can support an idea and still criticize people that you think are doing it wrong. You can be against sexism without thinking that every accusation of sexism is true. It seems like too many people in the feminist movement get defensive about criticism. They seem to want people to take their accusations on faith and get angry when people ask for evidence.
Secondly, you accuse Dawkins of pushing a strawman image of Feminism, but aren’t you one of the people who pushes the idea that MRAs are evil women hating monsters? Have you even thought for a moment that the reason why men may be joining MRAs is because they feel feminists are making false claims of sexism while ignoring gender issues that affect men? Aren’t you being sexist by assuming that if a group of men speaks out against gender roles that they must hate women?
Are you saying that the MRM is speaking out ‘against gender roles’? Can you point me to an example of a MRA who is ‘speaking out against gender roles’? Also, have you visited any MRA websites lately? There is plenty there to leave one with the assumption that the MRM is actively hostile towards women.
Sam.
Most of the MRAs that come on this website are straight out rape apologists or worse.
You may kindly fuck off sideways, into the sea.
goaded @474:
I have no interest in going over there. Why not suggest for them come here?
Sam Winston @491:
No, PZ does not call anyone monsters.
Other than that, yes, MRA are women hating scumbags. You’re probably thinking of too narrow a definition of hate.
you ask that as if you don’t know.
wait… that might be because you don’t.
run along, little troll.
thought that name sounded familiar.
check out the first comment on Greta’s article on Harris:
https://proxy.freethought.online/greta/2014/09/12/sam-harris-is-just-factually-wrong-globally-atheism-has-no-gender-split/
…another douchesplainer.
When do they falsely accuse people? Give documented examples.
When do they make negative assumptions about “men”? Give documented examples.
What does “other problems” mean? Give documented examples.
Tony:
Yes he does. Not often, but it has happened.
Sam Winston @ 491:
I’ll make you a deal. If you go over to AVFM or The Spearhead (both well known MRA sites), do a day’s worth of reading, then engage in a discussion of how women are actually more than despised sperm spittoons (screencaps, please), and get them to take an actually reasonable approach towards women, and actually decide to focus on mens’ issues,* I’ll take your post seriously.
*Here’s a hint: they don’t care about issues which affect men. You’re more likely to find effective measures in regard to mens’ rights being won by feminists.