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.
Re: science and objectivity
I’ll leave it up to the clever science folks on here to bring up Lysenko or the German’s “Uranium Club” (turns out “The Jewish Science” *was* the way to go when it came to how neutrons behave in a critical mass)
I think someone who’s not a woman and not a feminist can label people as feminist or not feminist or anti-feminist based on both profession of ideology and behaviour. I’m not a man or an MRA, but I can label someone MRA by their observable behaviour and speech. I can even, for example, label PUA as MRA or MRA-adjacent and people on this forum (who are not MRA) may or may not reasonably quibble about the accuracy of my label. Someone – say Roosh who is a man and definitely in the manoshpere – may say he’s not MRA, but I believe I can provide evidence to the contrary (the neo-masculinity stuff, for example). This stuff is all imperfect, but I don’t need to be an MRA or a man to call one out.
The Muslim labelling is a good example, too. If someone says they are a Muslim but does all kinds of haram things, you know, I’m not gonna call them not a Muslim or not a good Muslim, but I’ll feel confident saying they’re not a particularly observant Muslim. My gay, alcohol drinking, not-halal neighbour said he was a Muslim, and I believe him. And Muslims all over the world that I would have no problem calling Muslims spend a lot of time disputing just who is and who isn’t a Muslim, often with deadly consequences. So not being in that group, I’m not going to say Sunni is and Shia isn’t, but some of them sure do. Similarly, I guess I’m kinda Christian. I mean I’m an atheist, but I’m a Christian atheist and Protestant to boot – because that’s the culture I grew up in and which shaped me. And if someone outside my in-group decided to call me Protestant or Christian, it’s not completely inaccurate. Although, I don’t strictly identify as Christian and I certainly don’t believe and not observant in any real sense (love me some carol services though!). But people who are mainstream Protestants would probably no longer recognise me as one of their own.
So on that note – ok Dawkins says he’s a feminist. If he once was, he’s lapsed. I don’t think he’s a feminist. On the most generous assessment, he sure isn’t a very good one or an observant one. He’s heading pretty quickish into anti-feminist and even MRA territory.
@WWTH
I was going to link to the article by Ben Barres in Nature magazine that I believe you’re thinking of, but it’s behind a paywall. The Wikipedia article on him has some good quotes under the sexism section, though.
This is not quite on topic, but based on the discussion of labeling others and the Muslim example, I wanted to suggest the Good Muslim Bad Muslim podcast. It’s hosted by two women who are Muslims and feminists, one of whom is even married to an atheist. I think it comes out once a month or something like that, but it’s really good and a really great perspective on Islam in the United States and such.
Oh, and neither one considers the other a “good” or “bad” Muslim, and that’s actually part of point.
So, I just want some clarity here.
If someone claims to be a Muslim but says things that are not in accordance with the tenets of Islam, they are not a Muslim.
On the other hand, if someone claims to be a feminist yet repeatedly posts things that do not align with feminism, they are still a feminist.
It feels like there should be a word for that…
rugbyyogi,
It’s not so much that I think only a feminist woman can identify who is or isn’t feminist or anti-feminist. The problem is more that this troll clearly came in here to mansplain to us that it’s mean and unfair to label Dawkins an anti-feminist.
I don’t think the comparison to MRAs is quite fair. My main issue is with someone coming in to a feminist space to try and police how a majority woman group should get to talk about their oppression. If a bunch of feminists find Dawkins to be an anti-feminist, who is Arash to say otherwise. Especially since he didn’t even provide any evidence that it’s a mislabeling.
I just get really squicked out by someone privileged telling someone marginalized how they should label themselves and how they should label someone who is targeting them.
For example, in my opinion if someone who is ACE or trans and hetero and they identify as queer, I believe they should be able to use that label. But as a cishet person, it’s a discussion I tend to stay out of because it really doesn’t apply to me. I would certainly never barge into a queer space and jump into a discussion about it and start calling people irrational.
Does that clarify a little more why I asked Arash if he was a woman and/or a feminist?
If Romana’s such a clever Time Lord, why can’t she pull out Dawkins’ internet cable?
You missed the part where, with a truly breathtaking lack of self-awareness, he compared himself to Jesus over being uninvited to NECSS.
Also this:
What a fucking jackass he is.
http://www.enkivillage.com/s/upload/images/2015/01/e556af2d59ed9c8665e17739bc38db9f.jpg
Why would you say that? You don’t trust me? I don’t have virtue?
The thread is a mess.
Not just a fucking jackass but a stats failure too. The mean may be 100 but that doesn’t mean that 50% of the population has an IQ less than 100. That would only be automatically true if the median was 100. /maths pedant
“If there is better wording than “needing to own” I would be happy to consider it.”
Might I offer ‘acknowledge’ or ‘acknowledge and address’ as alternatives?
On Richard Dawkins’ and authorship of ‘The God Delusion’. Having read his earlier works on evolution and using those as a comparison, I’d draw the conclusion that Dawkins wrote ‘The God Delusion’. I find the title itself, comparing belief and delusion, problematic. The entire premise of the book is a logical fallacy, in that it’s an appeal to authority, and the chapter I managed to finish was full of strawman/ No True Scotsman fallacies. Which is a shame, because if he had addressed the varying philosophical points which present arguments for atheism, agnosticism and faith systems, it would have been a great book. I suppose philosophy isn’t his first field, nor his strongest.
I don’t think everyone who professes to be part of a movement has to be a perfect example of that movement, however I do think that if they have their mistakes or misunderstandings pointed out to them, then the very least they can do is to make an effort to correct their behaviour.
Anyway, hello everyone, longtime lurker here. 🙂
http://i.imgur.com/vUVH615.jpg
So you’re admitting that the Dawkhead isn’t a feminist, then?
Look. Dumbass. The problem isn’t that you’re using a definition to label things – I mean, that’s how human language works. The problem is that you’re using the wrong definition, declaring yourself the sole arbiter of who this definition applies to, applying it to some jackass who’s paid lip service to your definition once or twice while actively ignoring his years’ worth of words and actions to the contrary, and telling people who disagree with you to kill themselves. See the subtle differences yet, or do I need to use smaller words?
MRAs will never, ever understand
anythingthat words mean things, will they.Arash made jokes about suicide, which I’m fairly sure violates the comments policy against wishing harm on people, and he’s a tedious, self-important, pedantic little troll. I’d be plenty content to see the banhammer come down on this one. He’s got nothing interesting to offer.
Just another day on Twitter: Dawkins continues to make a colossal arse out of himself.
Link is to pharyngula, not Dawkins’ Twitter. For the link-averse, he retweeted what is essentially Dear Muslima with bonus graphically violent image!
***
(Copied over from the other thread before I start a horrible Dawkins derail over there, where we should be concentrating on the horribleness of Roosh).
Ninja’d by dhag85 waaaaaay upthread. That’s what I get for not catching up on my Mammoth before I head over to Pharyngula!
@Imperator Kahlo
Somehow I missed the link to the Pharyngula post so I’m glad you repeated it.
@Queenieinthenorth:
Welcome to the site! Have you had a welcome pack? Make sure to check out the comments policy.
@Paradoxy:
If you put sugar in your coffee then you’re trying to get steaming-hot caffeine without bitterness. You’re living in a fantasy world in which the positives of things can be separated from their negatives. You’re probably also the sort of person who wants a welfare state that doesn’t tax, cars that don’t kill people, politicians that aren’t corrupt, cattle that don’t destroy the environment and a high-level character without grinding. This is entitlement of the rankest sort.
You will drink your coffee and retch at its taste, and you will be grateful, young lady.
(/s, obviously.)
Coffee is okay, but flavorwise I prefer green or white tea. Not black tea, as I can barely taste it. However, coffee can occasionally be an interesting supplementary flavor, so I keep a bit of instant around to experiment with as a “seasoning”. Or just put a little in milk when I get tired of drinking plain milk. I should probably try matcha powder instead sometime, though I suspect that would go well with different things than coffee.
I don’t drink coffee or tea or anything else for the caffeine. It doesn’t work. Well, not as a stimulant, anyway, though it seems to work well as a diuretic.
Also, repost from the other thread, as I hadn’t checked this one yet either:
I think at this point we should just declare that Dawkins is the Andrew Schlafly of Atheism. That is, a big-name figure who presents himself as an authority, has a lot of rabid fans, but outside of those fans is a total joke. Bet he’d hate that comparison…
I’m reminded here of my late uncle, who was also a very distinguished academic before he retired.
During the later years of his retirement, he developed some very bizarre political views indeed. Fortunately, he had never been much interested in social media, so only his family and close friends received his increasingly eccentric and — to those of us who loved and respected him — distressing letters and emails about the state of the nation.
Heaven only knows what it would have done to his reputation had he discovered Twitter.
@Snowberry
I am addicted to tea. Greens, Whites, and Oolongs. Japanese greens are my favorite. What’s yours?
I want to try a good Pu-erh, but haven’t, yet. I may do that next time I head over to Tea Drunk in New York…
That would be so hilarious, and is perfectly apt.
From my perspective, he’s really gone full MRA. Every time he refers to himself as a feminist, I feel as if that’s insulting the movement. I wish he would just admit that he’s an MRA and get it over with…
That suggests an intriguing solution: Get him to create his own version of Wikipedia that only presents his opinions about everything, and then allow that to absorb all his and his fanboys’ time.
I guess Arash won’t be answering me. That’s a shame – I was honestly trying to engage them! The idea of “I just don’t believe in white man science” is an enticing one and it’s very popular, but it’s deeply flawed.
I mean, sure, on the surface level it’s true. The raw numbers and facts that science generates are objective. That’s not subject to human bias itself – numbers are numbers, and it doesn’t matter who’s looking at them.
Science is so much more than just numbers and raw facts, though. There’s Before The Numbers, in which researchers a) form a hypothesis to test, and b) devise a method for collecting observations. Both of these are subjective, instinctive processes prone to any of the rich library of biases we all host. There’s also After The Numbers, in which the raw results are examined, discussed, and conclusions are drawn. These too are subject to biases by the sheer fact that it’s humans which are making the conclusions.
arash, I asked you “how does science eradicate bias” because the majority of people think that it’s up to an individual scientist to discipline themselves into thinking objectively and that’s it. This is wrong, because the idea of a person eradicating their bias is flawed – that’s impossible. Brains are biased, in their very structure. You can no more get rid of your bias than you can remove your brain – your bias is you.
(This is not to say that we shouldn’t work to reduce bias in ourselves, but we can never actually achieve this – it’s a journey, not a destination.)
Science erases bias by generating and comparing diverse perspectives. The hope is that, by collecting a large enough diversity, we can average-out the worst of the biases to get a generalized “biased towards what the human brain perceives”.
This is why science needs women, and PoC, and the poor. This is why science needs feminism. Not just “for the wimmens”, but for science to come to better, more clear, more objective positions.
I yield the floor so that my peers may assess my contribution; may they find it wanting and improve it.