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.
@Brony
You’re being dismissive of the feelings of those of us who have described being dogpiled; i.e., “I don’t see much of a problem” and “I have limited sympathy here.” Please don’t do that.
@Brony – several non-trolls have described this happening to them and seeing it happen to other people. They have said how it made them feel and how it has driven others away. But you don’t see ‘much of a problem’ and have limited sympathy.
Then you go on to (unironically?) describe in-group psychology and the responsibility to ‘own’ issues and the toll it takes on people to argue.
and…
I think what is happening here is that there an imperfectly defined in-group who defends territory against any new poster who does not immediately agree with nearly everything. Instead of responding with “I don’t agree and here’s why” or “I think that’s a potentially damaging assumption you have there” there’s a lot of name-calling and character assassination and deliberate taking up of people’s words the wrong way and twisting them back so they seem more awful.* It’s super unpleasant. Yes, people can walk away and people do. That’s what these interactions are designed to make people do**. And it doesn’t just happen to new people either. It’s nasty playground behaviour. One or two people start it and a predictable set of four or five (or more) people join in and stick in the boot to a greater or lesser degree.
Asking people to ‘own’ behaviour in their in-group is hard, bloody hard. If you do, you risk losing your place in the in-group. Simply being able to walk away doesn’t mean walking away without repurcussion, you can lose the amenity or even worse lose the social connection. Ok, the social connection here is weaker because it’s online, but it’s not negligible. This is why some have noted that others don’t come to their defense. Because in-group status or even ‘acceptable’ status can be lost. Since I know I’ve already got bad-cred standing up for people who are getting dogpiled seems risky to me. Do I always agree with those who are getting dogpiled – no, I don’t. Sometimes I do in full or in part, and that feels even more dangerous. But neither do I think they deserve the treatment they’ve received.
By dismissing what we’ve said in this thread, you’ve just stroked the in-crowd. “Hey guys, y’all are alright. Nothing to see here.”
________
*One day I’ll learn how to properly punctuate quotes.
** I don’t think they are coordinated in secret or in a sort of conspiracy, but it’s pretty standard icky human group behaviour.
i hope so, and if you’re right, i’m another victim of poe’s law 😀
are you familiar with the concept of “implication”?!
the only way that there would be things like “white man science” or “black man science” is that white and black men have different scientific methods. mind that we are talking about “modern science”
nope, i’m not
even form Thomas Kuhn point of view, there is no such a thing as “white man science”. we have what is called “Paradigm” and is a result of scientific consensus and unless you prove that in a scientific discipline people of color or women can’t have a say, your argument is not valid.
on the other hand we can have things like “scientific racism” which is a Pseudoscience using semi-scientific methods to prove white man agenda
i entirely agree that people are fallible and scientists are people too.
even science is fallible but it’s possible to use scientific method to find better theories and explanations and that’s the beauty of science.
i say when you don’t agree with a statement that is claimed to be scientific , you should prove either it is not scientific or provide a better scientific theory
after what i’m saying is that please don’t call what is not science, science
@GardenGallivant
first of all do you have telepathy or something?! just defending someone or something(in this case dawkins) means the defender is offended!
perfect example of mind projection.
dawkins shows signs of misogyny and bias, after all he isn’t impeccable.
but back to the problem of “offensive language”, nobody wants to take your precious right to get “offended” and yes you can be offended and right about something, but no being “offensive” doesn’t make any argument illogical or unethical.
the problem is these emotions are by definition subjective, and you expect dawkins to tweet regarding feelings of others but will you stop speaking if i say your words are very offensive to me?!will you privilege like minded people’s emotions over people like me?
and the other answer is even more ugly, shutting down argument because some people are offended, which has no end
and yes i feel superior because even if i get offended, i won’t ever request anything near “will you shut up”, but rather i try to better my tolerance and logic.
so there is nothing wrong with having feelings and expressing them, but please don’t try to bash or silence someone “just because” you get offended.
EDIT: I suppose TW for the 2nd picture below.
Dawkins just retweeted this picture:
And this one:
But remember, he’s only criticizing a small minority of muslims and feminists, wink wink wink wink wink.
arash
Hrm I agree and disagree with aspects of this.
This (at least my interpretation) is something I agree with. It’s my response to the “civility brigade” who all seem to think unless you speak with calm cold non emotional language , and heaven forbid speak with emotion or sarcasm, or get snippy, then your argument is invalid. I’m much more for content over tone.
To answer your questions,
1)yes, I would want Dawkins to consider the feelings of others.
2)It would depend on what was offensive about it to you and why.
3)Again, it would depend on what it was.
4)not a question, but this would all be determined by the platform or location of the argument. Nobody is required to give anybody else access to their platform. Since the subject is twitter, if he started tweeting things the owners of twitter determined to be beyond their tolerances, they could remove him from twitter. And in the case of NECSS, they’d see what he was saying, determine if they want his voice associated with them, and decide to remove his access to their platform.
Even if it’s the same thing you’ve heard many many times? Or when the conversation is about something else? Or if it’s being used to silence someone with less of a voice? Or in this case it’s used to enhance the voice of those who previously caused harm to another?
I agree with the idea, but rarely do people do something “Just because” they are offended. Being offended isn’t a cause all on its own. It’s an effect. The reasons for being offended vary.
@dhag85
Dawkins never misses an opportunity to pour gas on the flames.
He’s angry at feminism and Islam because neither one puts him on a pedestal.
@arash
You might not be aware of the meaning of some of the things we say here. When we say “white men” we don’t just mean white people, we mean male. The OP could’ve added heterosexual, cisgendered, of middle to upper class, and other adjectives to make a point. Their statement is simply about people who believe they have a bird’s-eye view when they don’t.
I don’t do that either, but I don’t feel the least bit smug about it, precisely because I don’t have telepathy and I don’t know what other people have gone through. Some subjects can be deeply upsetting and even damaging to some people, and I don’t consider myself in the position to judge those people, because I don’t know their experiences.
But if you aren’t here because something on the post or the comments has upset you, why are you here?
But that’s not the issue we have with Dawkins (at least not at this moment). By posting that video, he brought attention to someone who’s been receiving threats for years – and in one of his tweets he said that she was “vile” and that maybe he shouldn’t have deleted the tweet with the video – so death and rape threats that that women may receive seem to be a-ok with him.
Plus, I don’t get what Dawkins was trying to say. “Some feminists suck”? “Some muslims suck”? “Fucking SJWs, amiright?!”? He could have done all three without the visual aid.
@Paradoxical Intention
I appreciate his intentions more than I appreciate Pearl’s , but he shows regret after dropping the mic… Nah, when you drop the mic, you have to put all of you into it, and never look back!
That Dawkins… he’s such a jerk. I’ve had the misfortune of being in a room with him with an audience of (mainly) adoring fans that he managed to insult and berate. I don’t think he even meant to, but what he said was so deeply insulting. It was during the time of G.W. Bush and he was addressing a room full of Americans (in London) and basically said we were all stupid for voting for someone from Texas. I didn’t vote for G.W., but I’ll be damned if I’m gonna be called stupid for voting for Ann Richards or if she’d ever ran for anything – Molly Ivins, say.
Regarding offense – I did find Matt Taylor’s shirt offensive in context – live broadcast to European schoolchildren and the wider context of debates about how welcoming STEM is to women. The initial reaction “Hey dude, is that really appropriate?” seemed about right. What I found more offensive was the outrage against anyone who said “Yeah, half nekkid women in fetish gear, not so much for the children’s hour.” (My spouse screamed at me when I said that at home.) What I find even more offensive is the suggestion that I can’t tell the difference between the execution of a woman in Afghanistan for probably an act that I do in the normal course of my week and inappropriate work wear. Or that I should be silent about things that do affect me (the portrayal and treatment of women in the West) because many women in the world have it much worse than I do and which I can do little about.
@rugbyyogi
This is exactly what Dear Muslima was about.
Well, I don’t see how this could possibly go wrong. :p
Great idea, asking this question just when you’ve attracted the attention of all trolls on the entire internet. I’m sure they’ll be helpful.
D’oh!
if you want to see people either on our side or the other side, then totally ignore what i write after this:
some parts of scientific community are infested with evolutionary psychology (and also the main idea is sound, some mainstream interpretations are pseudoscientific)
it’s not the root of racist/misogynist beliefs, but it fortifies them to a great degree.
considering dawkins case he has conflicting views which are likely caused by evolutionary psychology.
i think he sincerely holds some pro feminist beliefs regarding traditional society but it ends when it comes to western society which he believes has minor issues.
so he is not an all out feminist but he isn’t a patriarchal demon either.
hell i don’t even owe my atheism to him or any new atheist, but he has been vilified a bit too much.
he is sometimes an idiot or a jerk or a misogynist but his behavior is not consistent and doesn’t deserve to be called an anti feminist at least not yet.
Can you give a time frame here? Or let me know how many more times he needs to do this before we’re allowed to call him an anti-feminist?
what i’m saying is that many times he has defended women’s rights in traditional societies
so how can somebody be anti feminist and defend women rights at the same time? either he is not honest or he has conflicting views(which is what i say)
but you don’t see shades of grey in this matter,do you?!
sadly dawkins uses this argument frequently, which is a famous fallacy
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/156-relative-privation
@arash
I think I understand what you are saying.
I have seen more misogynistic things said by other people, things I haven’t seen Dawkins get even close to – but that doesn’t mean he’s immune to criticism on this (or any, really) area.
When I see someone who I respect doing or saying something that I think is fucked up I won’t try to excuse them.
I don’t think you’re here in good faith so I’m not going to take the time to find studies for you, but there have been anthropological studies of scientific institutions and they have found that women and people of color are listened to less and that the scientists are influenced by their own biases not just in the conclusions they draw but in what experiments they set up in the first place. And then there’s the way women and people of color are often discouraged from entering science.
@RosaDeLava
actually i have an obsession with words and being accurate.
if we call on him when he says stupid shit, i’m totally ok with that
but we should not demonize people to a degree that ignore all good things they say/do
Uh. He’s using “women’s rights” as a weapon against another group he doesn’t like, namely muslims. He only happens to care about women when he can use them for his crusade. This is the same thing as all the alt right racists do. I’ll give you the benifit of the doubt that you weren’t aware of this tactic.
We need a word for this, because it’s something that a lot of people say when they pop up here to defend their heroes. I remember that orange tango drinker did it too.
I suggest The Pedant Signal; because just like the Bat Signal it will summon people from great distances to come and burst through windows and disrupt whatever’s going on.
I trust you’ve gone to MRA sites and said this to them, right? Because they’ve been harassing Binx for three years just because she’s offended them. We on the other hand, are doing nothing but discussing amongst ourselves that we think he is a misogynist asshole. Link to where you’ve done this please.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, maybe it’s a duck.
This is the kind of thing we’re talking about when we joke about white guy science. You seem to be the type of person who demands proof that he’s a misogynist asshole who deserves the ire of feminists and/or atheists who don’t wish to be associated with the likes of him. When people give you the evidence, the evidence doesn’t count or isn’t enough. The goalposts for what is enough evidence keep shifting. Rather then let the evidence lead you to the conclusion, you come to the conclusion first and look for evidence to support your conclusion while ignoring or dismissing evidence that falsifies your conclusion. That’s not scientific at all, but because it involves subjects like misogyny or Islamophobia that causes emotional distress to the targets, you get to pretend that because you’re not personally harmed, your non-emotional reaction means it’s irrational for anyone else to feel harmed. You’re assuming your reaction is the default and everyone else’s has to be justified.
This is what I mean
When has he defended women’s rights when it hasn’t been an opportunity for him to talk about the evils of Islam?
I’m not going to call men with a history of misogyny feminist or feminist friendly when they magically only care about misogyny when it’s coming from people who have a skin color, religion, ethnicity or nationality they don’t like.
Also, why are you the arbiter of who deserves to be called an anti-feminist. Are you even a woman or a feminist?
don’t try.it’s easy to find:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-and-race-discrimination-in-academia-starts-even-before-grad-school/
but having a “bias problem” is very different than “having no say” in a discipline.
it’s harder for people of color/women to have a voice in academia, but it’s not impossible and already they have some voices.this is not 15th century!
and the concept itself has effects in some disciplines and not all, physics laws wouldn’t be any different if the scientists were black or white / man or woman.
Aversion to punctuation, refusal to admit that his favourite misogynists are misogynists, “I care about accuracy” – Arash is Orange Tango Drinker, isn’t he.
Dhag,
That meme is so much facepalm, isn’t it? As far as I can tell, feminists pretty much universally have only positive and admiring things to say about Malala Yousafzai. Feminists did a lot of signal boosting for the efforts to put enough pressure on governments around the world to get the girls kidnapped by Boko Haram rescued.
It’s almost like there’s a huge difference women in Muslim cultures talking about problems with misogyny in their culture and trying to fix those problems and white men from outside those cultures doing nothing to fix the problem and just using these problems as an excuse to be a smug, bigoted asshole.
That Dawkins thinks feminists are okay with violence against Muslim women and wants to tacitly call us terrorism supporters, I’d say he earns the title anti-feminist.
Sorry if my posts are word salad this morning. I’ve not had coffee yet.