Richard Dawkins’ Commendable Step on Sexism

SteppingStones

Well, this is most welcome news:

[W]e have to be able to manage disagreement ethically, like reasonable adults, as opposed to brawling like enraged children who need a nap. It should go without saying, but this means no death threats, rape threats, attacks on people’s appearance, age, race, sex, size, haircut; no photoshopping people into demeaning images, no vulgar epithets.

Richard adds: I’m told that some people think I tacitly endorse such things even if I don’t indulge in them. Needless to say, I’m horrified by that suggestion. Any person who tries to intimidate members of our community with threats or harassment is in no way my ally and is only weakening the atheist movement by silencing its voices and driving away support.

As I’ve written before, my esteem for Richard Dawkins has been on a downward slide these past few years in response to ignorant and insensitive remarks he’s made about race and gender in the atheist community, beginning with the “Dear Muslima” incident in 2011. I’d come to the point where I’d all but given up on him as someone worthy of admiration.

But this weekend, he issued a joint statement with Ophelia Benson, excerpted above and also published on his own site, which unambiguously condemns violent threats, vulgar sexism, or juvenile image-manipulation in lieu of an argument – all tactics used widely by aggressive anti-feminists. This is a tremendous and highly praiseworthy improvement, and while I don’t know what went on behind the scenes, Ophelia deserves great credit to the extent that she helped bring it into being.

As Gretchen Koch said, it should go without saying that all prominent atheists condemn this sort of behavior; but until now, it hadn’t. Dawkins’ pattern of making sneering remarks about social justice and privilege, while declining to address actual instances of sexism, encouraged some of the worst elements in the atheist community to believe that he was on their side. As recently as a few days ago, slimepit harassers were writing must-be-seen-to-be-believed self-insert fiction in which they ludicrously imagined themselves as brave heroes crusading against feminism on Dawkins’ behalf. (I assume they’ll be furiously spinning this statement any day now, if they haven’t started already.)

To be sure, one statement like this doesn’t wipe the slate clean. While I’m very glad to see Dawkins take a stand against harassment, I would’ve also liked to see him express regret for some of his own retrograde remarks. Nor is this any guarantee that he won’t return to tossing off disparaging opinions about women. At most, I’m cautiously optimistic. But I am optimistic, especially since consciousness-raising is often a gradual process. In the best case, this statement will be the first stepping stone in a journey, one that will lead Dawkins and other prominent atheists to fully recognize the undercurrent of sexist ugliness within our community and grasp the importance of opposing it.

Why does this matter? Here’s why it matters: this week, I read an atrocious story about a “men-only” bomb shelter in Israel, the awful end point of fundamentalist Judaism’s insistence on gender apartheid. We can and should condemn this, as just one example of the way that religion consistently devalues women. But if we criticize religious sexism in the wider world while tolerating it in our own house, we make hypocrites of ourselves and rob our argument of the impact that, by all rights, it should have. We’ll be handing the fundamentalists a ready-made excuse to dismiss us, and ensuring that religion’s harm to women continues unabated.

The only consistent course of action is to condemn sexism on both fronts: when it’s committed by religious believers following the decrees of an imaginary deity, and when it’s committed by atheists. Only then can we make a plausible case that we stand for something better. Richard Dawkins has taken the first step toward doing this. Now I hope he’ll take the next one.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Ann Kah

    Damion, you’re right, it probably won’t help the bomb-shelter business. But it’ll help atheists feel justified in the concept that religious dogma does NOT equate to moral superiority. Yep, there are some characters who are atheists that I wouldn’t feel comfortable hanging around with on a Saturday night, but it’s appropriate that we police the baser elements in our gang, and that the religious do the same with their gang.

  • Azkyroth

    Aaaaaaand a day later he’s on Twitter quibbling over “different levels” of rape.

  • Jason K.

    Yeah, he still doesn’t get it.

  • GCT

    Well, that didn’t last long. It took all of – what, 24 hours? – to destroy the cautious optimism that Dawkins garnered from his joint statement with Ophelia Benson. Now, I see that statement as a shield that he’ll use to deflect critics as he goes on his merry way saying even more stupid shit.

  • http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/ Damion Reinhardt

    Dawkins violated one or more of the standards laid out in the joint statement?

  • GCT

    Yes.

    Even if he didn’t, saying something so incredibly tone deaf as he did would be enough for me to lose any hope I had for him. And, that’s taking him overly charitably.

    The two examples he pulled up were carefully selected to poke people in the eye. He dredged up old arguments intentionally to provoke. He’s a douche bag.

  • http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/ Damion Reinhardt

    Sounds to me like you are demanding agreement, not merely civility.

  • GCT

    It’s not even close to civil for him to continue to poke like that. It’s not even close to civil to say such stupid things and then blame everyone else for not getting it. Sorry, but simply claiming that he wants to be civil is not enough. He’s got to demonstrate that he can walk the walk, and being a bull-headed asshole isn’t the way one does that. Simply not using bad words or actively calling for harassment doesn’t give him license to say anything and claim he’s being civil.

    Like I said, he’s using it as a screen, which is amply demonstrated by his screed that I link to in my other comment.

  • GCT

    Holy shit. It gets even worse:

    https://richarddawkins.net/2014/07/are-there-emotional-no-go-areas-where-logic-dare-not-show-its-face/

    See, he was just JAQing off.

    Oh, and he wanted to go into taboo areas because he’s a moral philosopher and he wanted to help all of us stop being too emotional.

    Oh, and he’s dismayed that we aren’t allowed to talk about certain subjects (FREEZE PEACH!)

    Oh, and he was also has to point out that real people are afraid to speak out because of the Orwellian thought police that will engage in witch hunts. Yes, he went there.

  • Azkyroth

    What.

  • Rennyrij

    A “men-only bomb shelter”? Are you kidding me? Where do they think the next generation is going to come from? If all the women are killed, they can forget it! This would be hilarious if it weren’t so purely stupid! (Or have they perfected “cloning”? Oh, my painted aunt!)