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.
Dave Rubin says the regressives are the lefts tea party
People calling people the regressive left is not evidence that regressive leftism is a real thing.
No I’m not a right winger and I despise our conservative government in the UK. I am on the moderate centre left.
@OTD, yes, yes, “left’s tea party”, etc, etc. You guys ahve repeated the same things in this thread ad nauseam. Except they don’t organize, and every example of the “regressive left” ends up being about some group of people unsure of how to deal with a difficult situation.
Progressives are willing to tackle tough questions head-on; their opponents respond with varying degrees of “detain, deport, dispose.”
I do have conservative friends. Just none that would ever use a jingoistic term like “regressive left” or “cuckservative”.
@Kat,
OTD is talking about The Young Turks, which are my favourite progressive show. Sounds like you’d like their show, it’s all about american (and some global) politics and news events. Great insights, very casual, and none of the videos are all that long. The lead host has said a number of times that, even if the Establishment in the US survives this election, it’ll be their last. To paraphrase, “If Bernie Sanders doesn’t win this election, Elizabeth Warren is going to take all 48 states in the next election.”
President Bernie Sanders and Vice President Elizabeth Warren. Can you imagine how awesome that would be for the US? :3 I am giddy just thinking about it!
@asswit
http://i.imgur.com/WH2lLrE.gif
*singing* Shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up…
Also, newsflash, you can call yourself left wing and vote left wing and still be a racist POS who calls people regressive because they are not racist.
I’ve emailed David with a request to ban tango fucker several days ago.
The whole “Regressive left” thing seems to be an error of understanding, really.
“Progressives care about ‘political correctness'”
+ “Political Correctness leads to sex trafficking and child abuse”
–> “Progressives are regressive!”
#1 isn’t right, because progressives care about political correctness amongst other things. “Political correctness” is a smear word for “cares about other peoples’ beliefs”, anyways.
#2 isn’t right, because it assumes that “political correctness” is all that progressives care about. Every. Single. One of these so called ‘regressive left’ examples have been about people who were
a) unsure of what to do (ohmigosh human beings struggling with complex moral issues), or
b) authority figures disregarding the reports of the disenfranchised. Guess which political ideology more greatly features authoritarianism? (note, it isn’t progressive)
OTP, the issues you bring up under the label “Regressive left” are complicated. Using this term for them boxes them up into a tidy package that can be then used to carry all of the blame and guilt you can cram into it.
It’s also wrong. You need to unpack that box, look at the individual components of what’s happening, and then address those things, without assigning a smear word. Yes, there is certainly an element of “fear of being labeled a racist” enabling the horrible things you’ve presented. There are other things also! Authority figures ignoring the plight of the disenfranchised. Political corruption and a not-in-my-backyard attitude. Many things are involved.
If you’re honestly a progressive, then using this label is doing nothing but supporting racists and authoritarians who want to tear down progressive ideals. So don’t be surprised if we call you a racist and an authoritarian.
I have provided Maajid Nawaz’s definition of the term and it is giving a name to a real thing that I have provided examples of. It is people on the left who ignore, excuse or tolerate anti liberal views, ideology or behavior for the sake of political correctness and multiculturalism.
I provided examples, the one of Denis MacShane former MP for Rotherham who ADMITTED that he didn’t tackle the issue of child abuse by muslims in his consituency because they were muslims. He even said there was a culture of “not wanting to rock the multicultural boat”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11059643/Denis-MacShane-I-was-too-much-of-a-liberal-leftie-and-should-have-done-more-to-investigate-child-abuse.html
So doesn’t that fit Nawaz’s definition of a regressive to a T?
here is another example, people often call CJ Werleman a regressive https://twitter.com/Ieninista/status/683422386478120960
some tweets by CJ Werleman about ISIS where he blames the actions of ISIS members on everything except the evil people doing these evil actions and the ideology of radical islam taken to the extreme.
He blames video games for making young men join ISIS, he blames Assad for the rapes by ISIS, he says ISIS never appeals to religion, says typical ISIS fighters just want security, says peaceful and reasonable muslims have joined ISIS to fight Assad, he says the killings are nothing to do with ideology only strategy, says USA is al qaedas air force.
all of that goes towards excusing ISIS behavior. Doesn’t that also fit Nawaz’s definition of a regressive?
Nawaz is the guy who coined the term and all the serious people I follow online who use that term use Nawaz’s definition. I admit I have seen some stupid people on youtube using it in a different way since the term has caught on, even people calling others regressives just because they are speaking out against racism for example. But I don’t take those people seriously.
why do you care? this is the only thread I am in and it is an old thread, you don’t have to come into this comment thread do you? I even said I wasn’t going to post in anymore threads after this one
@OTD
It’s already been explained. We don’t want later readers to read what you say without you being challenged on your views.
And there’s no need to be self-pitying about it. You know–and anyone who glances at the threads knows–that you’ve taken up lots & lots & lots of space.
Yes, OTP, we have read that and discussed it. You’ve linked that Telegraph article more than once, I disassembled its points above, and your reply was to post it again as if I hadn’t ever seen it before.
People do things for complicated reasons. Boiling it down to “lol regressive left” is minimizing and is meant to collapse all that complexity down to a single, easily-refuted statement – they’re regressive. It’s an empty slur, and I don’t give a damn what Nawaz meant it to mean.
Unless you address this point, as expanded on in my last post, all of my future replies will be in animated gif form.
“Why do you care so much and want me banned??? I’m only in a thread that was posted a few days ago, so why don’t you abandon it to me and let me strut about here like I’ve won something! After all, it’s not like I’m someone barging in on a space that’s obviously not meant for me or anything! I’m definitely not an intruder in an intersectional feminist space who’s shown myself to be racist, sexist, and defensive of bigots I happen to like on a number of occasions who the regular commentators and a handful of other people have grown expressly tired of! Why do I have to leave?!”
No one cares if you’re not going to post anywhere else. We just want you to stop posting because we’re getting really tired of your shtick. You’re boring. Go away.
@Scildfreja
I consider myself a liberal but not progressive. From what I’ve seen its the progressives who are authoritarian, not the liberal left. I don’t think all progressives are the regressive left though, just some of them and some of the regressive left are not progressive either.
why would you call me a racist though?
If you mean right wingers then Rotherham is famous for being very left wing politically.
I never said fear of being labelled a racist was the only reason for the rotherham sex scandal and a would disagree with anybody who simplify it in that way, that was a lot more to it. But yes the fact is that some of the people involved in the cover up acted the way they did for that reason and that is what we mean by regressive
Well, that’s the biggest word salad I’ve read all day.
which race do you think I am racist against?
Middle Easterners. Duh.
I actually wasn’t only referring to you, that was a general statement. But I agree with SFHC.
You do realize that regressive and progressive are antonyms, right?
As a progressive I want all of the following things
– Access to affordable healthcare for everyone that includes abortion, birth control, any procedure or treatment a trans person needs to live as their gender, and mental health coverage
– Affordable if not free higher education
– Affirmative consent
– Freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
– LGBT as a protected class so that all forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity are outlawed
– Living wage
– Labor laws that allow unions to thrive
– Environmental and food safety protections
– Clean energy
– Progressive tax laws so that the rich pay the most while the poor pay the least
– Publicly funded elections
– Net neutrality
Not a comprehensive list or anything, but those are the basics.
Not seeing the authoritarianism here.
That last post was a reply to tango rash, obviously.
Also, taking an ill advised action, or lack of action for fear of seeming racist is cowardly and lazy. Not regressive. Applying the label “regressive left” to the people involved in the scandal applies that they failed to fully investigate and prosecute these cases because they believe that it’s okay for Muslims to molest children.
Of course, if there wasn’t such a climate of hatred towards Muslims in the first place, these officials never would have over compensated.
I’m not excusing what happened at all, but using it as evidence that the left are bedfellows with Daesh is just ridiculous.
@OTP; I guess I’ll answer this one with words, since you seem to be engaging a smidge with this post.
First, authoritarianism in the left.
I can tell you’re not a progressive. “Liberal” can mean a number of things these days, spreading from deeply libertarian to progressive. It’s not a very useful word, so I tend to avoid it.
Progressives are not at all about authority – at all. Progressives question authority. Progressive is about change – about examining our society, seeing what works and what doesn’t, and then getting rid of what doesn’t work, and replacing it with things that are better. Progress. Change. It’s right in the word.
Conservatives are all about protecting that which exists. Tradition, history, and respect for the existing edifices of power. This includes, by definition, respect for the existing power structure – the authority. Conservatives can argue about what level of authority they respect – tradition changes, and for example some Canadian conservatives are monarchists and some are neoconservative, but they all include a respect for the way things are done.
(You’ve said you’re liberal, and I suspect you’re using the older definition of the word, which is closer to what a north american would consider conservative. Small government, maximum individual freedoms, capitalism, that sort of jazz. I won’t put words into your mouth, though; your mileage may vary)
Next, the last I’ll say on this whole “regressive left” nonsense.
What you don’t seem to understand is that I’m not saying that your term or definition of “regressive left” is invalid. Of course there are progressives who screw it up and end up supplying cover to racists and bigots, or BEING racists and bigots, as WWTH points out above. Progressive is not a synonym for good, it’s a synonym for trying to improve.
What I’ve said from the start is that the term is a silencing term used to minimize the problems that progressives point out.
A progressive will point out that maybe there are complex reasons for issues in the middle east, and that saying “It’s Islam” is over-simplification and distraction from things that we can change. But – wait – “regressive left! Siding with terrorists!” Discussion over.
A progressive will point out that, while the problems with refugees flooding into western countries in Europe may exist, there are a lot of factors involved and maybe we should – “regressive left! Protecting rapists!” Discussion over.
The term may be defined as “political correctness that ends up being harmful”, but its use is “smear to minimize complex issues into a racial confrontation”.
THAT is why you may get called a racist for using the term. Because it erases the complexity of issues, and compacts it down to “racial/social group X is bad”.
And that’s my final judgement.
Hi5 @ WWTH
@WWTH:
But didn’t you know? These are the worst possible kind of tyranny:the kind that stops rich white cis het dudes from treating the world and everyone on it as their private property.
Poor cishet white dudes
http://25.media.tumblr.com/9b40e33d3af435d6bebff8be1a785ad7/tumblr_mg05acQ3fU1qj13q4o1_250.gif
@WWTH, @scildfreja
Very nicely stated!
Aaaaaand this will be comment #1,100.