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.
What the fuck did you just say?
So is there, like, a committee who decides who’s part of what group? Or do we all have to come to you personally to find out?
Sure, okay. But saying “I believe men and women are equal” doesn’t make you a feminist until it informs your behaviour. Richard Dawkins can say “I’m a feminist!” until he’s blue in the face, but if it doesn’t inform how he behaves, his belief is meaningless. He might as well be an antifeminist, or apathist (i like that term, though I’m not sure if it works here).
Likewise, a Muslim might say that the Quran isn’t the word of god, but if that Muslim prays appropriately, or has behaviours consistent with Muslim belief, then that person is still a Muslim.
I guess it comes back to that saying of “Intent isn’t magic.” Dawkins might believe that women and men should be treated equally, but if his actions aren’t bourne out from those beliefs (by willful ignorance, maliciousness, or just-not-getting-it), then he is not a feminist.
Ontologies are hard to construct!
@Scildfreja
i’m just against the “white man science” concept.
sure there is bias and discrimination and it should be eradicated,even the slightest.
but when you are mildly sick and somebodies shouts “oh she is dying” and i say “no she isn’t” doesn’t mean i don’t think you are sick and need help.
Arash’s conviction that he gets to be the arbiter of who is pro and anti-feminist reminds me of Isaac Asimov’s quote.
When looking for the quote, I saw another one that also fits the topic well.
@EJ (The Other One)
calm down!:D i meant black swan :))
http://24.media.tumblr.com/9278bce557972f9bb73de96708768514/tumblr_mzd3p9qKGs1qlitzvo1_500.gif
This, so much this. And then this again.
Saying “Science has some bias in it” is like saying “The ocean has some water in it”. It’s made of bias. And yes, I mean that with its full implications – it is composed of an enormous aggregation of biases.
Math is a tool, and does not work independently of the brain. Human perception is required to use it, and human perception is biased.
THIS is why more women and PoC are needed in the STEM fields. Science is based on the eradication of bias through the introduction of conflicting opinions. Bias within the population will bias the conclusion.
THIS is what is meant by the saying that science is a heterosexual white male enterprise, and needs an overhaul to include feminist thought.
The face of science for all humanity must look like all humanity, or its conclusions will be wrong.
@Brony
The previous comments about dogpiling were unrelated to the topic of a group “needing to own” the bigotry expressed by some of its members; therefore, your comments to @littleknown were unrelated to what I was talking about so I didn’t take them into account. I was talking about WHTM specifically and the dogpiling of established commenters or new commenters who aren’t overt trolls.
Pardon me if I go a bit Socratic on this. I’m really curious about your answers. I’ll reply to your answers as snappily as possible.
How does science eradicate bias?
arash
But you also shouldn’t be surprised if people say “How do you know? Are you a doctor? Who made you arbiter of who’s dying? How’d you even get into my home??”
The mildly sick thing is a funny analogy considering how big of a problem sexism is in medicine. It’s a problem in research because both animal and human research is usually done with male subjects. It’s a problem in patient care because doctors take female pain less seriously than male pain. If Arash was a doctor, I bet you anything he would be dismissive of the symptoms female patients self report.
Women die of heart attacks because their symptoms present differently than in men and doctors often dismiss those symptoms as mild illness or a mental health issue.
@weirwoodtreehugger
i just claimed to be “one” of those who can determine that matter and you denied me this not even knowing if i’m a woman/feminist or not.
@dhag85
so the words of founder of the religion and it’s holy book are not enough to know who is a muslim or not, wondering how shocked muhammad would be if he knew that.
@Scildfreja
even if muhammad and Quran clearly say that it is the word of god and denial means you are not muslim?!
not all of them, come on
But who decides what those core values are? Who judges whether a person really believes them or not? Your definition requires us to literally be psychic.
@weirwoodtreehugger
There have also been studies that show that doctors take the pain of black people less seriously than white people, so we can throw racial biases into the bag too.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0048546
Yeah, because all Christians definitely agree that the Bible is the word of God, who created the flat Earth in 6 literal 24 hour days and is totally cool with slavery. Those who don’t believe that would never be called Christians by anyone.
…wait.
Yes. Almost as if religious people are capable of thinking “just cause it’s written in an old book doesn’t mean it’s true” too, just like atheists. In that case, the difference is in the debate of how much truth is in the book.
I reply to this by re-asking the question I asked earlier: How does science eradicate bias? Please, that’s the important thing here. I feel that your answer to this question will shed a lot of light on where our differences are coming from.
Are you a feminist? If so, what are those core feminist principles you believe in. What makes someone a feminist? What makes someone an anti-feminist? Do you think that meme that Dawkins retweeted which suggests that feminists are in league with groups like Daesh or the Taliban is anti-feminist? If not, why not? If so, why do you think Dawkins doesn’t deserve to be called an anti-feminist when he’s posting anti-feminist memes?
I also have a bonus question that has nothing to do with feminism. I sometimes joke that I’m a neurosurgeon because when I was in college I had a lab assignment for my cognitive neuroscience class that consisted of performing neurosurgery on rats. But maybe it shouldn’t have been a joke. Maybe I do get to call myself a neurosurgeon. Technically it’s true. What do you think?
Fun fact about Islam: It has 1.6 billion adherents all over the world who practice widely different traditions. In Kazakhstan, people typically drink alcohol and don’t pray. They don’t generally follow food observances or rules about uncleanness and female Kazakhs usually aren’t veiled. Some of them celebrate Muslim holidays by toasting Muhammad.
Yet they almost all consider themselves Muslims and would be indignant if you called them “bad Muslims.” Because it turns out there’s no Pope of Islam who governs what’s the right or wrong way to follow this religion.
Yeah, that sounds like the sort of statement that can actually get you kicked out of the comment section.
And you are so above it all, aren’t you? A beacon of critical thinking, whose alliance will never be sworn to any disputing parties.
You, indeed, are the right person to be the judge of absolutely everything.
What even is your argument? “Dawkins isn’t the most misogynistic person in the word so he isn’t a misogynist”? Or do you think that if Dawkins claims to be for equality we will automatically consider him a feminist? Because, uh, no.
Making a logically sound argument is the easiest thing ever. Here, just watch.
1-All things that fly are birds
2-Bats fly
-Therefore, bats are birds.
My conclusion is absolutely sound based on my prepositions, but guess what is wrong?
If your premise isn’t valid, logic alone won’t save it – you go back to the drawing board.
That’s not what ad hominem is. Ad hominem would be someone saying your opinion isn’t valid because you drink your coffee with sugar – questioning your information on the subject is totally valid, and you have yet to demonstrate any knowledge.
In fairness, people who drink their coffee with sugar are utterly without virtue and cannot be trusted.
@arash, I have to be out of the house for a few hours. If you answer I will reply when I am back. I hope that you do!
@EJ
But… but… I drink coffee for the caffeine, not the flavor (it’s just bitter to me, and yes, I’ve had lots of different kinds of coffee… I have a friend who was determined to find a coffee I’d like drinking black… he’s yet to find one). I use creamer and sugar, and I’m proud of it… 😀 😛
@EJ(TOO) and Nathan Hevenstone
I have to say I can’t stand coffee unless it has sugar in it, and only then I’ll just drink it if I really have to.
I survive on a diet of tea, coconut water and sunshine 😀
@ WWTH
When I was a kid one of my teachers had “Space Traveller” as his occupation on his passport. Whenever the Customs people questioned this, he’d take a step sideways.
@ Tessa
I don’t think you were rambling; and even if you were I love the “stream of consciousness” posts that sometimes crop up here; they’re often the most interestIng.
As to the topic at hand, you know, I think you may have identified that I do have a bit of a subconscious bias about ‘offended’.
I think that’s down to the times I grew up in. The “I’m offended and that’s good enough” argument cropped up so many times. But the people saying that had the power to act on it.
This meant having to traipse all over the country just to find somewhere the Sex Pistols were allowed to play or to watch “Life of Brian”. I remember my mum being mortified when my favourite comic was banded (“The seven penny nightmare” as the press dubbed it) and the guy in the newsagents said he totally agreed and treated my mum like she was buying her kid snuff movies or something.
Yeah, so it’s maybe because I was conditioned to see “being offended” as the perview of people in power insisting the world conform to their narrow views that I have a bit of an aversion to the concept. Hmm, interesting.