Almost three years ago, a feminist activist committed what many not-so-impartial observers apparently see as an unpardonable sin: she was less than polite to a small squad of Men’s Rights activists at a demonstration in Toronto. At least one of these gentlemen caught her outburst on video, and uploaded it to YouTube.
You know the rest: the video went viral, and the activist, a red-headed woman known as Chanty Binx (or “Big Red,” to the douchebag army), found herself suddenly transformed into “The Posterchild of Everything Wrong with Feminism,” as one of her haters put it. Her face has become ubiquitous in antifeminist memes, and she’s endured nearly three years of harassment.
Earlier this month, antifeminist YouTuber Sargon of Akkad — who makes his living pandering to some of the internet’s worst lady haters — posted an animated video by another antifeminist YouTuber in which an angry Islamist and an angry feminist sing a song explaining that they pretty much believe all the same things. (For some reason, this nonsensical theory is something that a lot of antifeminists have convinced themselves is true.)
The angry Islamist in the video is a familiar racist stereotype, complete with “funny” accent. [Correction: He’s evidently supposed to be a parody of this guy, known as Dawah Man, a legitimately terrible person you wouldn’t think atheists would have to strawman in order to criticize..]
The angry feminist, meanwhile, isn’t a generic figure; she’s an especially crude caricature of Binx, spouting nonsense that neither Binx nor any other feminist actually believes: the video ends with her encouraging the Islamist to rape her, because it’s not really rape if a Muslim does it, dontchaknow.
It’s a vicious, hateful little cartoon made worse by the fact that these words are being put in the mouth of a real woman who’s been the target of a vast harassment campaign for years.
Yesterday, Richard Dawkins, apparently seeing this horrendous video as a clever takedown of some brand of feminism that he must think actually exists, shared it with his 1.3 million Twitter followers:
Dawkins, a well-respected scientist-turned-embarrassing-atheist-ideologue, has become notorious for his endless Twitter gaffes. But this is plainly worse than, say, his famously pathetic lament about airport security “dundridges” taking his jar of honey; his Tweet contributed to the demonization of a real woman who’s already the target of harassment and threats.
The awesome Lindy West pointed this out to him in a series of Tweets and linked to one of my posts cataloging some of the abuse Binx got after the video of her went viral.
In a series of eloquent and angry Tweets, she made clear to Dawkins how and why he was misusing his huge platform and contributing to an atmosphere of hate online. Dawkins, alternately indignant and defensive, ultimately took down the offending Tweet, but not before making other Tweets that were nearly as bad. Dawkins can’t even do the right thing without being a dick about it.
Let’s watch Lindy at work:
After what was apparently an unsatisfactory response from Dawkins — I couldn’t find his Tweet, if there was one — West repeated and expanded upon her basic points. [EDIT: The unsastisfactory respose, West tells me, was that Dawkins posted a link to one of the videos of Chanty Binx at the Toronto demonstration.]
Well, that got his attention:
So there you have it: when informed that a tweet of his will almost certainly worsen the vicious harassment faced by a young woman whose only “crime” was being rude to a couple of MRAs in public, Richard Dawkins, a one-time winner of the American Humanist Association’s Humanist of the Year Award, replies by saying that “she deserves nothing more than ridicule.”
West replied:
Dawkins then decided to suggest that perhaps Binx was, you know, crazy:
Dawkins ultimately agreed to take down his Tweet linking to the execrable video. But he offered no apology. And he went on to suggest that just maybe Binx had … threatened herself.
We’ve seen this, er, argument before.
Does Dawkins have any conception of just how much abuse women like Chanty Binx get? If she were sending herself all the threatening and harassing messages she gets, she wouldn’t have time to eat or sleep.
And I wonder if Dawkins thinks she drew the caricature of herself that was used in the video he retweeted.
Thoughtful as ever, Dawkins made sure to remind his 1.3 million followers that Binx still deserved all the mockery they could deliver. Just not the death threats please!
And he begged his readers to think about the real victims here — those people, like him, who might have to curtail their mockery somewhat because their terrible, terrible fans might be inspired to hurt someone.
RIP, Richard Dawkins’ comedy career.
Is Dawkins actually unaware that by punching down at a woman who’s already been the target of a three year harassment campaign he almost certainly is contributing to the threats he claims to deplore? It’s hard for me to believe that he could be so naive. But the alternative explanation — that he knows full well that he’s encouraging the harassers — is even more disquieting.
One good thing has come out of this ugly episode today: The Northeast Conference on Science & Skepticism has un-invited Dawkins from its event this year. A post on the group’s website today explains:
The Northeast Conference on Science & Skepticism has withdrawn its invitation to Richard Dawkins to participate at NECSS 2016. We have taken this action in response to Dr. Dawkins’ approving re-tweet of a highly offensive video.
We believe strongly in freedom of speech and freedom to express unpopular, and even offensive, views. However, unnecessarily divisive, counterproductive, and even hateful speech runs contrary to our mission and the environment we wish to foster at NECSS. The sentiments expressed in the video do not represent the values of NECSS or its sponsoring organizations.
We will issue a full refund to any NECSS attendee who wishes to cancel their registration due to this announcement.
The NECSS Team
Good for them. The atheist movement needs to stand up to the haters and harassers in its midst, including those like Dawkins, who may not directly harass or threaten but who use their huge platforms to amplify and embolden this hatred and harassment.
It would be nice if Dawkins were to actually learn something — a little humanity, a little humility? — from this incident, but when it comes to the subject of feminism Dawkins seems incapable of taking in new information, much less learning anything from it.
EDITED TO ADD: And now, as if to prov what I just said in that previous paragraph, Dawkins is now second-guessing his decision to take down his tweet linking to the video, because GamerGaters are telling him that Chanty and I made up the evidence of the abuse she got.
NOTE: Lindy West has a book coming out soon. Pre-order it below!
CORRECTION: I added a bit noting that the Islamist in the cartoon video is supposed to be a parody of a real person.
EDIT: I added a line about Dawkins tweeting a link to a video of Chanty Binx at the Toronto demonstration.
Ddog I don’t know what a sock is. Alan. Firstly, if that is your real name and photo, well done – it shows at least some substance compared to the wacky stuff from many others in this forum. You are operating with a number of premises that in my view are false. So, to address your comments, I would have to first declare that the premise of women living in constant fear of rape assault and murder is ridiculous. They have never been safer in the history of western civilisation. You are confusing their FEELINGS with what is real. Never before have we put womens feelings at such a high importance in our society. Hugely damaging and very offensive to all the good men out there.
Cheers Kat
Oh and can I just say I loved your relationship advice on the other thread.
*Scribbles notes furiously*
That stuff’s frikkin’ gold dust. You should write a book (I’m given to understand there a market for that kind of thing)
😉
the feminutzis are alienating themselves from a growing audiences with their dogmas and perpetual victimhood complex. they might still hold a certain power in politics and institutions but people are growing aware of their crazy mentality and there’s no turning back once you get people to understand how insane you are.
in the words of Kenshiro: dear feminists, omae wa mou shindeiru, you are already dead.
And how do you know that I’m not using my real name and photo, hmm?
Is the concept of having an inventive internet nym itself now being held to be unacceptable? Really? Really?
Is this based on evidence or your own feelings? If it’s the former, could you link to it in its entirety? If it’s the latter, not that that’s something you’ll admit to, you can take this attitude and shove it, you hypocrite.
EDIT: Ten quid says that this mentality is based on the following thought: “Well I’VE never met a woman who has told me she’s been raped, and I’ve never seen rape happen either, so it must all be a product of feeeeeemale imaginations!”
I find hardcore Dawkins defenders to be woefully predictable. “You’re too stupid to understand what he really meant” (or variations thereof) is a common insult. Or an assumption that you must automatically possess the kind of worldview that Dawkins would be vehemently opposed to. It’s a lot like arguing with an Ayn Rand fan, really.
I’m an atheist, but I’m not an antitheist. I’ve got no use for religion or spirituality myself, but I respect that others do. There’s a lot in The God Delusion that I agree with – and I think it’s a vitally important book in many respects – but Dawkins said everything he had to say about atheism there. Since then, his opinions have coarsened, and his rhetoric has gotten woefully black-and-white, and it feels like it’s all calculated to keep himself in the spotlight. I really do think the notoriety went to his head.
@ gavan
Yup, real name and real picture. Obviously a little air-brushing on the cheekbones; but you know what a premium society puts on appearance these days.
I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree with your premise that women are safe or that their fears are illusion army or exaggerated. Might it be they’re safer than at other times in western civilisation? Possibly (I genuinely don’t know) but if they are, that’s not a very high hurdle. It’s not that long ago that “the delicious tang of rape” was seen as a completely acceptable, ney aspirational, turn-on for men.
On what evidence do I base that view? A few sources actually.
I’m aware of the dangers of anecdotal evidence, but I’m fortunate to know quite a few women (perhaps less fortunate in terms of how many decades I’ve been able to know them). I’ve seen what they have to put up with. What is particularly poignant is how many have personal experiences of sexual assault or rape.
I also have a bit of a sideline in teaching self defence. Unsurprisingly perhaps many of the women who choose to undertake that do so as a result of personal experience. Again though you could argue that’s a self selecting group.
Moving on to more objective evidence: I’ve worked in the criminal justice system. I know the statistics. I have friends who defend in rape cases. I speak to the police. I know how many victims come through the system. I also know how many cases never even get that far.
You’re entitled of course to say that unless there’s a conviction those other cases don’t amount to evidence. I’d disagree with you there. I know the forensic problems (using the word in its technical sense) in putting a case together that meets the “realistic prospect of conviction” test.
So putting that together, it passes my own personal standards as to the evidential requirements for establishing a fact (and assessing evidence is something I have some professional skills at).
I think therefore I’ve established a prima facie case that rape fears are justified. I think if you want to rebut that, then the burden to do so falls back to you.
Sir, you have the floor.
Gavan isn’t worth the energy to mock anymore, so I’m going to throw back to some of the original sentiments of this topic.
I consider myself both an atheist and a Buddhist. And I capitalized those deliberately in that way. The atheist part is because I, like many Buddhists, don’t believe in any god or gods. But I also try to follow Buddhist principles and practices. I meditate, volunteer and try to align myself against possessions (which is so incredibly hard in America, let me tell you).
The interesting thing is that I can’t always identify myself as either in various company. For example: if it ever came up at work I probably wouldn’t answer at all if I could get away with it. I work in a very odd mix of super religious and militantly atheist men and women. But the only time I’ve really hit any kind of push back at all to my belief system is from white people who consider me being Buddhist to be “appropriation”. I don’t hold with that, I think anyone who wants to convert to a religion should be welcomed by that religion, but apparently there is a significant enough portion of white people who like to claim they’re ‘buddhist’ but don’t actually know what that means and don’t follow the practices that people push back on it. So in circles where I don’t think that will be well received I tend to just call myself an atheist and let it go. That is one of the more wonderful aspects of Buddhism, the idea of letting people be in charge of what they need to do to reach their own enlightenment. There are plenty of guides out there to help you on your path, though, for which I’m grateful.
It’s seeing the way Atheism (with a capital A) presents itself that makes me wary about it. I like the core and think there are some good points to be made about Western society in Atheism. But it has never been my way to want to convert anyone who doesn’t come to something themselves and I don’t think the majority of Movement Atheists agree.
My grandmother was a welder during WWII. She isn’t ashamed of me. She probably would think Gavan is an asshole.
@Paradoxy:
I hear you. I’m an old hag (been a priestess for nearly 30 years now) and just can’t be arsed to tangle with those. I may be long and happily out of the Broom Closet, but, reincarnation notwithstanding, life is still too short for getting into fights with the kind of people who dismiss all things spiritual as “woo”, or that anything not 100% science-based is therefore irrational and rubbish. (There’s a lovely German word for the headaches this sort of thing creates: Kopfzerbrechen, which literally means “breaking one’s head apart (over something)”.)
I have a lot of total unbelievers for friends, and they don’t rag on my Wicca any more than I do their atheism. (I also have a lot of friends of various religions, FWIW.) We definitely agree that rigid, racist/sexist fundies, not religious beliefs in general, are the problem. And that it’s ignorance, not religion in general, that we should be fighting. There are plenty of religious people who aren’t ignorant — Jimmy Carter, for one; Desmond Tutu, for another — and just because they’re church people who believe in God, doesn’t mean they’re “sheeple”. (I’ll save that term for blinkered camp followers of whatever persuasion, including certain atheists who like the likes of Dickie Dawkins, Thunderfart, The Underwhelming Atheist, etc.)
@Alan, you reminded me of this, so now I’m sharing with the class:
http://www.daisyowl.com/comic_images/52.gif
I disappear for a day and the thread goes from onepage to eight. I’ve finally got caught up. The trolls have been entertaining, pity they got in the way of the real discussion about Richard Dawkins and his abhorrent misogyny. I always got the feeling Dawkins and his ‘New Atheism’ friends would be more accurately described as anti-theist than atheists because rather than not believing in gods or the supernatural, they are actively unpleasant to those who do. I’m not sure if that has anything to do with his misogyny, but bigotry of one type does seem to be accompanied by other bigotries.
(Aside @ Alan, as a proud Lincy I’d like to point out that the Pilgrimage of Grace wouldn’t have got off the ground without the Lincolnshire Rising:-P )
Edit: make that nine pages
Why is it that trolls who hold themselves up as paragons of intellect and rationality are always such terrible writers?
It’s women’s feelings. Not womens feelings.
@Lost in Lindsey:
No less a person agrees with you than Christopher Hitchens himself:
I’m curious about the God Delusion (it’s been name dropped several times in this thread so I thought I might as well comment on it) but when I did try to read it I noticed just…so much strawmanning. And around that time Dawkins said something about how he didn’t need to actually know about religion in order to write about it and be right about it too. I haven’t touched it in years so I should revisit to see if my memories of the are correct, but I did find it hard to get past the misrepresentation and tar brushing as far as I recall.
Oh, I should clarify, I don’t mean atheism is bigotry, I mean Dawkins’s rhetoric against the religious is full of bigotry, for example the already mentioned ‘Dear Muslima’ comments.
@EJ(TOO)
So I see, and he seems so proud of it. I think it’s an extremely arrogant attitude to take.
Alan. You are someone that for whatever reason finds it rewarding or neccessary to perpetuate the myth that all women are victims. I’m sorry but this is almost certainly something to do with your childhood – some trauma perhaps. To insinuate that you have authority and experience in this field and then say that “It’s not that long ago that “the delicious tang of rape” was seen as a completely acceptable, ney aspirational, turn-on for men.” is a disgusting and offensive statement. Seriously. You are doing more harm than good here.
Oh, and Gavan?
I’m Canadian. I was born about 5 years before the Vietnam War ended (and yes, Canadians fought and died in THAT fiasco). I’ve lived through Gulf Wars I and II, also known as the “War on Terror”. I’ve lived through the Reagan Recession, the Mulroney Recession, the Bush I and II recessions, and the Harper Recession. Hell, the Korean War STILL isn’t over, and it’s been what? 65 years now? Your argument is weak sauce with weaker sauce on top. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, but I pronounce you Epic Fail.
Also, to you and your sea-lion buddies, I have just this to add:
http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/1339426725154_9146065.png
@ lost in lindsey
That’s very true; and whilst some may say that the Lincs Uprising was the historical equivalent of starting a row with the hardest guys in the pub then buggering off and leaving your mates behind to get their heads kicked in, I certainly wouldn’t. 😉
You can fuck off, too.
@Alan
I’m sure you wouldn’t 🙂
And it would be a bad metaphor anyway, we never said Yorkies were our ‘mates’, we have longer memories than the relatively recent Tudor period.
And…everyone else here has no idea why this conversation is funny and we should probably get back on to the subject of Dawkins?
Bina – I have lived thru all that too. Do your history. None of it compares to the great depression. You are a first class sook.
Because they’re such shoddy thinkers. Sloppy writing and sloppy thinking tend to go together, in my experience.
We simply NEED to come up with an official term for “a troll who assumes we’re all women and yells incoherent nonsense at everyone, then finds out one commenter is a white cis man and proceeds to address only him, while trying to pit him against all other commenters and giving him awkward compliments”.
The description is too long, and the phenomenon is too common and specific for us not to have a short and snappy term for it.