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.
At least this guy made me remember this song:
@wwth
I completely agree, except for the thing about word salad. :p
Why is this distinction important? Any bias at all can affect research. If you care so much about accuracy and science, you’d be more focused on getting the bias out of scientific fields as much as possible. Not quibbling with feminists over semantics.
wow the force is strong with you and some other indigenous commentators.the force of tribalism.
i visit here occasionally but just read david posts and never participated in comments section till now, hmm damn it i’m depressed now 🙂
so this is THE Rule, unless i’m a feminist or woman i can’t say who deserves to be called a feminist or an anti-feminist.
do i have to show my identification card!? maybe i’m an MRA or anti-feminist infiltrator
So, he’s arrived at the “tribalism” accusation. “Echo chamber” coming up next, followed by “censoring all dissenting opinions”, and then an angry flounce while yelling sexist slurs at everybody. I’m gonna go make dinner now, let’s see if he self-destructs before or after I come back. :p
… No shit. That’s not a gotcha, that’s telling us the sky is blue.
@dhag85
well it’s always the other way around, and sadly you’re going to be disappointed.
but please don’t kill yourself over this disappointment, i’m here to stay, later your suicide would be a little more justified.
so basically if i’m not a chicken i can’t tell what is a chicken and what is a cat?!or am i distoring your ad hominem argument
Yes. Yes, that is exactly right. Unless you’re a feminist you can’t say who’s a feminist or not; and unless you’re female you’re going to have bad judgement about who’s a misogynist or not. People outside a group don’t get to make decisions about the membership of that group.
Is that new to you?
@arash
If you’re not a woman, you will never understand what it’s like to be a woman.
I’m a straight, white, cis-gendered, able-bodied man. I will only ever know what it’s like to be a straight, white, cis-gendered, able-bodied man. As a result, I listen to people who are not on that spectrum when it comes to issues that affect them, because they are experts in their experiences, and I am not an expert in their experiences.
So when it comes to what women go through, I defer to women.
You should consider doing the same.
Tweeting a meme that says feminists don’t care when Muslim women are executed is iron-clad proof that Dawkins is an anti-feminist.
It’s like MRAs who say women are liars and are after men for their money. They can’t credibly claim that they only meant to insult some women.
Aw crap, I forgot to mention the inevitable suicide “jokes”.
@EJ
i just hope it’s another joke but i treat it as it’s not.
the concept is not new, group bias is well known in humans and animals.but actually i didn’t expect it here and that surprised me, my bad.
anyway let me illuminate you:)feminism is not a kind of group that in it people are selected or elected, it’s an ideological group and parameters of membership(according to appearances) are pretty objective and determining (logically) that someone is in group or not is a task that any in/out group member can do it.
That’s right. You’re not an expert on everything. When you don’t know what you’re talking about, you should listen to people who do. As a white person, if a ton of POC are saying they find someone or something racist, even if I’ve never noticed that person being racist before, I’m going to listen to them. Because they would know better than me. For example, I probably wouldn’t have noticed how overwhelmingly white the last two slates of Academy Award nominations were if there hadn’t been people of color pointing it out. We tend to have a harder time seeing things that don’t directly affect us. You seem to have trouble grasping this.
And you still haven’t answered me. What makes you qualified to decide who is or isn’t anti-feminist? I’m asking for evidence. If you don’t give it to me, I’ll know you hate the scientific method.
@ Auntie Alias
I gave more detail than that and it’s fair for me to ask that people take that detail into account, and in return I can explain more in places where I was not clear or gave too little information on something that requires more. My comment was focused on trolls and I provided too little information on something that needed more. I do not simply dismiss people who have felt dogpiled as a general group and I do give more weight to what people from groups who have to deal with bigotry and xenophobia feel. In sort the people I have in mind are the people how are bigoted and xenophobic and I’m giving more detail below.
I can’t promise that everyone will be happy with my views but I can say that I have no problems with rules against dogpiling and adapting to anything that exists here. I can even suggest some things if the rule came up for discussion because I see “dogpiling” as more of a consequence of group behavior and not a tactic that one deliberately uses (though some people can make others feel dogpiled because of how much text they put on a screen. If I make people feel that way I want to know because I am one of those people).
I believe that what is seen as “dogpiling”, and “group criticism/shaming”, and “harassment” likely feels very similar but is not something that should simply not exist. Let me be clear, I’m talking about group criticism of bigots and xenophobes and I am in fact a person who would aid the people that have to deal with bigots and xenophobes. That is a form of social role-modeling that communicates what is unacceptable or shameful and like other things is needs morals and ethics. As a species we do still respond to “making an example out of people” and in many ways that is what is happening to MRAs and Dawkins when they get large amounts of criticism. But it always needs defined scope and limits and there is not a lot of social agreement there at the moment. Social change takes place via many routes, but I would not complain if it was something I could not participate in. Maybe the world would be better if it was a broadly disapproved behavior, I’m pragmatic here.
I’ll try to make sure that my wording does not dismiss what others feel even if I end up strongly disagreeing, so if there are any more problems I hope you are willing to speak up.
@ rugbyyogi
My response to Auntie Alias was written with you in mind as well.
As for unironically, I’m not sure. I see these things in terms of social conflict strategy and like I mentioned above I don’t think that group criticism is a thing that necessarily should disappear from human behavior. So on one had I do feel that I should “own it” when it comes to shitty behavior in the atheist community, but I see dogpiling as a behavior that is shitty in some contexts but not others. It’s a matter of there being lots of tools available when it comes to social conflict and change. Master Beta and Gavan would be example of people I would help pile onto.
As for the in-group here, I can agree that as a group there is likely some automatic defensiveness when it comes to new posters. It’s probably as a result of marginalized people finally having a space where they stand on equal or even superior ground so to speak and in that context it’s a good thing (and I also agree that it’s not deliberately organized). But I can also agree that it’s a thing that requires codes of conduct. For my part as a person with Tourette’s Syndrome I do experience marginalization and very often attract the sorts of people you have in mind, but TS ends up being an advantage there because it gives social conflict advantages and I actually make an effort to take such people seriously as a necessary habit so my perspective has some unusual biases there.
I tried to be clear about there being limits to pressuring people to “owning” group behavior. I don’t believe that everyone can or should try to do so (there are few universals here). If the current rules are not useful and it was revisited I would certainly take your experiences seriously in such a thread. If a way could be found to effectively get the group to limit things to 2-3 responders I would not see that as a bad thing.
It seems Dawkins has attracted all the MRAssholes to himself and this post sigh.
It’s like trollopolooza on this thread!
Sorry I am on a four hour train journey and was really proud of thinking of trollopolooza and had to post
?
( Does not present an opinion on the argument going on, i just like the idea :3 )
Brony
^^^^^^^^ That thing right there. It is true! Hard to avoid, needs careful attention to minimize. A bit of a challenge to deal with. I support the idea of guidelines to help minimize this, even if it’s just an occasional reminder from da boss.
Re: Outrage
Outrage is a perfectly fine response to human behavior or communication. What matters is why the person is outraged. Most people I have seen criticizing outrage by feminists, LGBT+, racial minorities, others and their allies look like people being outraged at outrage to me and I have not yet seen a good argument against the outrage.
It’s looks more like an attempt to get people to stop complaining about things worth being outraged at and is accompanied by fallacious arguments like “it’s just a joke” or “emotion is not valid”. Both of those are garbage because humor is a part of social conflict and is often unavoidably insulting towards a group. Seriously, here is my attempt at analyzing the “humor” in this video and it’s disgusting.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/01/28/its-just-the-total-dawkins-meltdown-now/comment-page-1/#comment-997419
As for emotion, emotion is always a part of everything that we do as human beings. Emotion is a file system structure that links perception and memory. It governs our responses including use of reasoning (all reasoning) and it’s a targeting system for logic. It’s not a matter of keeping emotion out, it’s a matter of figuring out where one’s emotion is and being aware of it.
@arash
This has nothing to do with “group bias” at all. It’s not even related. You’re confused.
Obviously the people in group X are the only ones who can decide whether other people are their allies or not. If you’re not in group X you don’t get to dictate to the group who they should support. How the fuck is this even difficult to understand.
EDIT: Food is ready! 🙂
@Nathan Hevenstone
i can’t disagree less with you, but here our feminist fellowes are not talking about “what a woman experiences” but who can determine who is a feminist or not.alas they think they have some sort of entitlement.
but joking aside, i like tormenting people minds when they are alive:D
@weirwoodtreehugger
the problem is being a member of an ideological/sexual/ethnical group doesn’t automatically makes you an expert(which is what you’re suggesting)
if you’re looking for an expert, the knowledge and not mere experience alone, determines who is an expert.
as i told EJ the only qualification that is needed in this case is that my argument to be logical and sound.
if you think my argument about who deserves to be called feminist or not, is illogical, then yes there is a fair chance that i’m wrong
but if you insist on attacking my supposed “credibility” in this matter, then that’s just ad hominem fallacy
I work in a pretty hard science – there are surprisingly squishy portions of it, but … well, let’s say that the distinction between hard and soft science is more about sexism and tribalism than it is about anything objective.
One of my co-workers is an absolutely brilliant Nigerian woman. She’s working on stuff that regularly blows minds. She gets a lot of respect within our group, what with being one of the sharpest tacks in our junk drawer. (the fact that she’s also witty and fun helps a lot too).
Outside of our group is an entirely different story. Success in science relies on the presentation of ideas. The ideas have to be rock solid, certainly, but the presentation part can’t be ignored. Without successful presentations, your career goes nowhere, no matter how good your work is.
Presentation is in conference talks and dissertations, and in white papers and submissions. White papers and journal submissions are easier, obviously, but many editors look at the author names and where the paper is from, first thing. This colours their perspective of the work in the same way that male or female/foreign or indigenous sounding names affect resume acceptance. And talks or dissertations are subject to a full range of issues.
Saying “sure, there’s bias, but it’s not like they have no say” is … I’m not sure what it’s saying. What’s your conclusion to that? What’s the “therefore”? Therefore we shouldn’t worry about feminism in science? Therefore we shouldn’t call out harmful statements from prominent scientists when we encounter them? What’s your conclusion?
Your argument was that there are objective standards as to who is a feminist and who isn’t, based on an agreed upon definition of what feminism means. Then you go on to declare anyone a feminist who claims to agree with the goals of feminism, as defined by this definiton. You also seem to stretch this to someone who sometimes claims to agree with feminism, and who sometimes says stupid shit like “feminists want muslim women to be executed”.
This is so obviously fucked, I barely know where to begin. You’re not “tormenting [my] mind”, you’re tormenting logic.
@dhag85
the group bias against me:D and not determining who is a feminist or not.
actually you are who confuse feminism with a club or something!
feminism has a set of core values, if a person believes in them then he/she is a feminist.if you think that women are inferior to men, you are not feminist no matter how many feminist(just for the sake of argument) say that you’re a feminist.
or if somebody claims he/she is a muslim and then proceeds to say that Quran isn’t the word of god, he/she is not a muslim no matter how many muslims(again just for the sake of argument) say that he/she is a muslim.
these black swine examples show how absurd your argument is.
I remember reading an account from a mathematician who is a trans man. After doing a talk at a conference, he overheard some people talking about how much smarter than his sister he is.
He doesn’t have a mathematician sister. His “sister” was him, back when he was presenting as female.
Bullshit right there.