Atheism and Misogyny

[Betoni]

About the "Dear Muslima" letter. What makes it misogynistic IMO has nothing to do with what might've or might've not happed in the elevator. What Watson said in her vBlog is irrelevant to the issue of Dawkins letter being misogynistic or not. It's not even what Dawkins said, its how he said it. The whole letter is in bad taste, and quite likely, provocative by design. Not only does it try to trivialize whatever concerns Watson might have had, it ridicules the fact the she dared to voice those concerns at all and in the process manages to insult Islam and the people who identify with said religion. Now I really can't say anything about Dawkins' thoughts on feminism as I haven't really heard him voice his opinion and to make any statements about his position on the issue from such a small sample would seem moronic. The whole Muslima bit does betray a rather unfortunate idea that women in more oppressive areas are passive totally helpless victims and the only way for these almost child-like simpletons to achieve humane treatment is if WE the civilized folk help these savages. Though that's just extrapolation on my part and one should take it with a spoonful of salt.

[The Parkus Empire]

a rather unfortunate idea that women in more oppressive areas are passive totally helpless victims

Really not too far off, tbh. However if I see a woman's revolt any time soon, I will be overjoyed.

[Diopolis]

Now, is it just me, or is the atheist "movement" associating itself more and more with anti-feminism? Three popular figureheads of the movement, Bill Maher, Dawkins, Amazing Atheist, have all expressed misogynist attitudes. Has anyone else noticed this trend amongst anti-theists? Is atheism being appropriated for male empowerment?

Input, please.

EDIT: To clarify, I mean the anti-theist movement, which is unfortunately labeled as the "atheist" movement by the mainstream, and even anti-theists themselves.

Not really. I'm no fan of atheism, but I recognize that extreme movements tend to attract assholes, who are more likely to be misogynistic.

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

Not in the context.
Leaving a coffee store following a talk already occuring during a hotel convention (where "Late at night" is entirely relative.)
Especially with the added "Don't take this the wrong way." which seems to heavily imply that he's explicitly disowning the cliche and really is just inviting them back for coffee.

"Don't take this the wrong way" only ensures that the receiver will take what you're saying the wrong way.

Without knowing anything about this kerfuffle beyond what has been posted in this thread, I find it bizarre that it is being argued a woman in such a situation could not reasonably feel uncomfortable when the very phrase "don't take this the wrong way" indicates the speaker knew the question could be reasonably taken "the wrong way." The "logic" of such assertions is ass-backwards.

If two or more people are in a situation where "person X" asks a question or makes a statement prefaced by "don't take this the wrong way," then "person X" is acknowledging others in the situation could reasonably be made uncomfortable, feel threatened, be offended, etc., by the question/statement! For a third party not present to contradict the assessments of both "person X" and the party made uncomfortable and argue no one reasonable person would be uncomfortable is beyond the pale.

And the disclaimer itself does not necessarily negate either the reasonableness of a negative response by the listener or possible ill intent by the speaker. (Although the later is really irrelevant here.) Offensive, threatening, rude, sexist, etc., statements are often prefaced by meaningless disclaimers ("I'm not a ____, but . . ." or "I do not mean to ____ you . . .") that are actually red flags. Particularly in the context of how the listener could reasonably feel the instruction not to "take this the wrong way" is not objectively reassuring and it is subjectively reasonable to react more negatively because of it.

[Geilinor]

Now, is it just me, or is the atheist "movement" associating itself more and more with anti-feminism? Three popular figureheads of the movement, Bill Maher, Dawkins, Amazing Atheist, have all expressed misogynist attitudes. Has anyone else noticed this trend amongst anti-theists? Is atheism being appropriated for male empowerment?

Input, please.

EDIT: To clarify, I mean the anti-theist movement, which is unfortunately labeled as the "atheist" movement by the mainstream, and even anti-theists themselves.

Not really. I'm no fan of atheism, but I recognize that extreme movements tend to attract assholes, who are more likely to be misogynistic.

How is not believing in God or holding the belief that no God or gods exist extreme? Atheism is no more extreme than theism. Misogynist views are a quite common view in society actually, more widespread than many people realize.

[Sociobiology]

About the "Dear Muslima" letter. What makes it misogynistic IMO has nothing to do with what might've or might've not happed in the elevator. What Watson said in her vBlog is irrelevant to the issue of Dawkins letter being misogynistic or not. It's not even what Dawkins said, its how he said it. The whole letter is in bad taste, and quite likely, provocative by design. Not only does it try to trivialize whatever concerns Watson might have had, it ridicules the fact the she dared to voice those concerns at all and in the process manages to insult Islam and the people who identify with said religion. Now I really can't say anything about Dawkins' thoughts on feminism as I haven't really heard him voice his opinion and to make any statements about his position on the issue from such a small sample would seem moronic. The whole Muslima bit does betray a rather unfortunate idea that women in more oppressive areas are passive totally helpless victims and the only way for these almost child-like simpletons to achieve humane treatment is if WE the civilized folk help these savages. Though that's just extrapolation on my part and one should take it with a spoonful of salt.

that sound more like projection, because there is no suggestion of that in the letter.

[Sociobiology]

Yes, but people such as Dawkins don't write under that banner, they write under the "atheist" banner. That's a problem in its own right, because it makes atheism out to be an ideology.

He can claim he's acting for "atheism", but painting a horse with stripes doesn't make it a zebra.

actually he usually writes under the scientist banner, when he doesn't he writes under the reason banner.
He has actually been vocal against using the word atheism as an ideology. Of course he replaced it with the brights which a bit condescending, but Dawkins, and scientists in general, are not know for tact.

[Arkinesia]

All I see here is that once again we see that atheism != enlightenment, aka “nothing new under the sun.”

[Frisivisia]

All I see here is that once again we see that atheism != enlightenment, aka “nothing new under the sun.”

It is a fairly necessary part of this balanced enlightenment, though.

[Trotskylvania]

He can claim he's acting for "atheism", but painting a horse with stripes doesn't make it a zebra.

actually he usually writes under the scientist banner, when he doesn't he writes under the reason banner.
He has actually been vocal against using the word atheism as an ideology. Of course he replaced it with the brights which a bit condescending, but Dawkins, and scientists in general, are not know for tact.

Dawkins in particular, is known for his tactless treatment of many other fields in science as a special case of his own.

[Tahar Joblis]

Yes, studies that are deeply controversial, and contradicted by other contemporary studies.

Pretty much all studies which have asked the general population of both men and women and used screening questions that actually pick up violence in both directions.Seriously.

Individual study results vary, but the general pattern is that the better your methodology is (e.g., drawing from the general population instead of drawing from special subsets thereof, asking behavior-specific questions like "Has your partner punched you? Has your partner slapped you? ... etc" rather than questions which require synthetic judgements, like "Are you a victim of domestic violence?") the more symmetric the numbers are, with the exception of completely unidirectional violence, which persistently shows women commit unidirectional violence more often.

The "deep controversy" about this fact is wholly politically manufactured. The data is out there, and the studies of all kinds are numerous enough for us to see that heavily lopsided data is usually paired with one or more of a number of identifiable shortcomings.

Straw men, and a particular egregious one. Nowhere did I allude to the myth of the rule of thumb, and its nonexistence in no way refutes the fact that until very recently all European cultures were male dominated ones, where violence against women was sheltered as often as it was condemned

By "very recently" do you mean "sometime before 1824, when a court in the deep South in the United States rejected the idea that violence against women was sheltered as an antiquated and barbaric idea"? Or perhaps were you meaning to refer to Europe before the widespread idealization of a chivalric code which idealized being kind to women in an era where bloody and brutal death was common?

Violence against women being sheltered as often as it was condemned has not been the case in your lifetime or my lifetime or in the lifetimes of anyone posting in this thread, and violent crimes against women are treated more seriously than violent crimes against men. Period. Including domestic abuse. Situations in which a man assaulting a woman would be studiously ignored? These are, for the most part, situations in which a woman assaulting a man would be studiously ignored; which is a much larger class of situations.

So you're denying that, historically, men have been part of institutions of male dominance?

Historically speaking - and contemporaneously - women have often played every bit as important of a role in forcing conformity to gender roles as men. Currently, women play a much larger role in enforcing gender roles. I'll have a new thread on that soon enough if you want to go into how and why, but it's pretty far off the topic of this one.

[Sociobiology]

actually he usually writes under the scientist banner, when he doesn't he writes under the reason banner.
He has actually been vocal against using the word atheism as an ideology. Of course he replaced it with the brights which a bit condescending, but Dawkins, and scientists in general, are not know for tact.

Dawkins in particular, is known for his tactless treatment of many other fields in science as a special case of his own.

It is worth noting science does not really encourage tact, instead fostering merciless deconstruction and viscous attacks on the ideas of others.
Ideas do not deserve respect in science, only consideration.
I know he is known for lack of tact with religion, which should probably be encouraged, but this is the first I have ever heard about it towards other sciences.

[Geilinor]

Dawkins in particular, is known for his tactless treatment of many other fields in science as a special case of his own.

It is worth noting science does not really encourage tact, instead fostering merciless deconstruction and viscous attacks on the ideas of others.
Ideas do not deserve respect in science, only consideration.

That's completely ridiculous. Science is for the civilized discussion of ideas with evidence that can be objectively confirmed with observations or data.

[Tahar Joblis]

Without knowing anything about this kerfuffle beyond what has been posted in this thread, I find it bizarre that it is being argued a woman in such a situation could not reasonably feel uncomfortable when the very phrase "don't take this the wrong way" indicates the speaker knew the question could be reasonably taken "the wrong way." The "logic" of such assertions is ass-backwards.

Could be reasonably taken "the wrong way," which should reasonably result in no more than a trivial amount of discomfort. "Hey, I think you're interesting. Would you like to come up to my hotel room and make the beast with two backs?" is a potentially awkward statement to make, but half the awkwardness in that version is the hanging question of whether or not the person you're talking to has an intense dislike of Shakespeare.

It's perfectly okay to ask people if they want to have sex with you, provided you're polite about it and take "no" for "no." People can and do proposition other people that they have only just met and only just talked to for a little while for sex, and sometimes they are even told "yes." There's this something called a "one night stand," which is a common label for the subset of those cases in which they move along in the morning.

So what the statement could be mistaken for in the first place is not, in fact, something that the receiver ought to be more than trivially discomforted by; and what the statement actually was does not make the discomfort of turning them down much, if any, greater (I would say lesser).

And the disclaimer itself does not necessarily negate either the reasonableness of a negative response by the listener or possible ill intent by the speaker. (Although the later is really irrelevant here.)

Yes, it is irrelevant here. Contextually, "I like your shoes. Where did you buy them?" can be a threatening statement. Watson has not indicated she felt threatened; and the situation she describes is not one in which you ought to feel threatened.

And she can very reasonably say "no" with or without the disclaimer, taking the statement literally or taking it for a sexual proposition.

What Watson complained about making her so extremely uncomfortable that she had to spend half her video post on it, was "being sexualized." That is, she thought the man she was talking with thought she was appealing as a sexual object. Which, as her critics pointed out within a day of her posting the video, happened entirely in her head.

[Verbal Pararhea]

Does everything have to be a collectivist identity politics movement these days? What do I call myself if I often agree with progressives in terms of what's wrong with the world, but I hate their identity politics, populist tactics, simplistic us-vs-them analysis, etc.? Because that's where I often find myself.

Sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. exists and it is a problem. But progressive ideas about how to fix the problem often don't sit right with me.

[Tahar Joblis]

actually he usually writes under the scientist banner, when he doesn't he writes under the reason banner.
He has actually been vocal against using the word atheism as an ideology. Of course he replaced it with the brights which a bit condescending, but Dawkins, and scientists in general, are not know for tact.

Dawkins in particular, is known for his tactless treatment of many other fields in science as a special case of his own.

Which fields?

Source and cites. Not that I would be surprised to hear someone claiming that (scientists often speak quite expansively of their field), except that he's a biologist, and there are comparatively few fields biologists commonly try to annex.

[Verbal Pararhea]

Dawkins in particular, is known for his tactless treatment of many other fields in science as a special case of his own.

In some sense, he's technically correct. There is a pretty general hierarchy of what is contained within what, and the study of all life certainly contains the study of particular complex behaviors of one species of primate as a proper subset.

[Sociobiology]

It is worth noting science does not really encourage tact, instead fostering merciless deconstruction and viscous attacks on the ideas of others.
Ideas do not deserve respect in science, only consideration.

That's completely ridiculous. Science is for the civilized discussion of ideas with evidence that can be objectively confirmed with observations or data.

civil is not the same thing as nice.
civil means only the ideas and evidence (or lack thereof) are attacked.
to quote
"Stoning non conformists is part of science. Stoning conformists is
also part of science. Only those theories that can stand up to a
merciless barrage of stones deserve consideration. It is the
creationist habit of throwing marshmallows that we find annoying."

Ideas are worthless in science until demonstrated otherwise, science is not for the thin skinned.

[Tahar Joblis]

About the "Dear Muslima" letter. What makes it misogynistic IMO has nothing to do with what might've or might've not happed in the elevator. What Watson said in her vBlog is irrelevant to the issue of Dawkins letter being misogynistic or not. It's not even what Dawkins said, its how he said it. The whole letter is in bad taste, and quite likely, provocative by design. Not only does it try to trivialize whatever concerns Watson might have had, it ridicules the fact the she dared to voice those concerns at all and in the process manages to insult Islam and the people who identify with said religion. Now I really can't say anything about Dawkins' thoughts on feminism as I haven't really heard him voice his opinion and to make any statements about his position on the issue from such a small sample would seem moronic. The whole Muslima bit does betray a rather unfortunate idea that women in more oppressive areas are passive totally helpless victims and the only way for these almost child-like simpletons to achieve humane treatment is if WE the civilized folk help these savages. Though that's just extrapolation on my part and one should take it with a spoonful of salt.

You've laid out more of a case for calling Dawkins bigoted against Muslims than bigoted against women. His description of what "Muslima" faces could be pulled right out of a feminist pamphlet; if saying that some women are oppressed somewhere is misogynist, then Rebecca Watson is very misogynist, and the corner of the atheist movement friendly to her is misogynist for viewing women as passive victims of coffee-drinkers.

The problem with labeling Dawkins an Islamophobe is that Dawkins intends to be highly insulting towards religion, and it's not just Islam he's hostile to. The Dawkins brand is entirely built on bluntly non-diplomatic anti-religious statements. It is a reason to criticize him, but it's very unlikely that Dawkins has any fans who are not hypocrites who would be offended by him attacking Islam.

[Sociobiology]

About the "Dear Muslima" letter. What makes it misogynistic IMO has nothing to do with what might've or might've not happed in the elevator. What Watson said in her vBlog is irrelevant to the issue of Dawkins letter being misogynistic or not. It's not even what Dawkins said, its how he said it. The whole letter is in bad taste, and quite likely, provocative by design. Not only does it try to trivialize whatever concerns Watson might have had, it ridicules the fact the she dared to voice those concerns at all and in the process manages to insult Islam and the people who identify with said religion. Now I really can't say anything about Dawkins' thoughts on feminism as I haven't really heard him voice his opinion and to make any statements about his position on the issue from such a small sample would seem moronic. The whole Muslima bit does betray a rather unfortunate idea that women in more oppressive areas are passive totally helpless victims and the only way for these almost child-like simpletons to achieve humane treatment is if WE the civilized folk help these savages. Though that's just extrapolation on my part and one should take it with a spoonful of salt.

You've laid out more of a case for calling Dawkins bigoted against Muslims than bigoted against women. His description of what "Muslima" faces could be pulled right out of a feminist pamphlet; if saying that some women are oppressed somewhere is misogynist, then Rebecca Watson is very misogynist, and the corner of the atheist movement friendly to her is misogynist for viewing women as passive victims of coffee-drinkers.

The problem with labeling Dawkins an Islamophobe is that Dawkins intends to be highly insulting towards religion, and it's not just Islam he's hostile to. The Dawkins brand is entirely built on bluntly non-diplomatic anti-religious statements. It is a reason to criticize him, but it's very unlikely that Dawkins has any fans who are not hypocrites who would be offended by him attacking Islam.

actually his brand is built on extremely solid science, he does apply the same methodology to many thing people are not comfortable applying science too. which is not something he should be ashamed of.

[Geilinor]

You've laid out more of a case for calling Dawkins bigoted against Muslims than bigoted against women. His description of what "Muslima" faces could be pulled right out of a feminist pamphlet; if saying that some women are oppressed somewhere is misogynist, then Rebecca Watson is very misogynist, and the corner of the atheist movement friendly to her is misogynist for viewing women as passive victims of coffee-drinkers.

The problem with labeling Dawkins an Islamophobe is that Dawkins intends to be highly insulting towards religion, and it's not just Islam he's hostile to. The Dawkins brand is entirely built on bluntly non-diplomatic anti-religious statements. It is a reason to criticize him, but it's very unlikely that Dawkins has any fans who are not hypocrites who would be offended by him attacking Islam.

actually his brand is built on extremely solid science, he does apply the same methodology to many thing people are not comfortable applying science too. which is not something he should be ashamed of.

I agree. He applies solid science to everything, including religion.

[Trotskylvania]

Yes, studies that are deeply controversial, and contradicted by other contemporary studies.

Pretty much all studies which have asked the general population of both men and women and used screening questions that actually pick up violence in both directions.Seriously.

Yeah, that's not true in the slightest.

Don't claim that there is a consensus when there isn't.

Individual study results vary, but the general pattern is that the better your methodology is (e.g., drawing from the general population instead of drawing from special subsets thereof, asking behavior-specific questions like "Has your partner punched you? Has your partner slapped you? ... etc" rather than questions which require synthetic judgements, like "Are you a victim of domestic violence?") the more symmetric the numbers are, with the exception of completely unidirectional violence, which persistently shows women commit unidirectional violence more often.

Funny that you should neglect rate and severity.

Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women between the ages of 15 to 44

63 percent of all homicides with a female victim and an identifiable perpetrator are perpetrated by a significant other.

The "deep controversy" about this fact is wholly politically manufactured. The data is out there, and the studies of all kinds are numerous enough for us to see that heavily lopsided data is usually paired with one or more of a number of identifiable shortcomings.

Clearly, all the studies that agree with you are unbiased, thoughtful science. The ones that disagree are a manufactured, misandrist political conspiracy.

By "very recently" do you mean "sometime before 1824, when a court in the deep South in the United States rejected the idea that violence against women was sheltered as an antiquated and barbaric idea"? Or perhaps were you meaning to refer to Europe before the widespread idealization of a chivalric code which idealized being kind to women in an era where bloody and brutal death was common?

So you really are saying that violence against women, in an era where they were treated as perpetual minors just never really happened.

Super-structural ideology doesn't change the basic realty. All the chivalry in the world didn't change the disadvantaged position that allowed abuses to be sheltered, and forced victims to keep quiet.

Violence against women being sheltered as often as it was condemned has not been the case in your lifetime or my lifetime or in the lifetimes of anyone posting in this thread, and violent crimes against women are treated more seriously than violent crimes against men. Period. Including domestic abuse. Situations in which a man assaulting a woman would be studiously ignored? These are, for the most part, situations in which a woman assaulting a man would be studiously ignored; which is a much larger class of situations.

Police officers, a male majority profession, have among the highest incidences of domestic violence against their partners. They the ones called upon to investigate and apprehend suspects in the cases of domestic violence. This is a reality that hasn't left us, and its legacy still affects us today.

Did your really think that changing this would be a quick and easy process?

Historically speaking - and contemporaneously - women have often played every bit as important of a role in forcing conformity to gender roles as men. Currently, women play a much larger role in enforcing gender roles. I'll have a new thread on that soon enough if you want to go into how and why, but it's pretty far off the topic of this one.

Yes, so did the head house slaves play a role in enforcing the racial obedience of black slaves. Didn't mean that there was any measure of equality.

[Sociobiology]

Yeah, that's not true in the slightest.

damn

Physical assault is widespread among adults in the United States: 51.9
percent of surveyed women and 66.4 percent of surveyed men said they were
physically assaulted as a child by an adult caretaker and/or as an adult by any
type of attacker. An estimated 1.9 million women and 3.2 million men are
physically assaulted annually in the United States.

that is disturbingly high, no matter who you are.
What the fuck is wrong with the US?

[Sociobiology]

actually his brand is built on extremely solid science, he does apply the same methodology to many thing people are not comfortable applying science too. which is not something he should be ashamed of.

I agree. He applies solid science to everything, including religion.

which has much the same effect on religion as a chainsaw has on runny butter.
he makes a good case for religion doing far more harm than good in the modern era. And yet he is amazing even handed to religion, it is just that most religions have gotten used to being especially privileged and protected from criticism, so when you start treating them with fair criticism it feels to them to be unfair, because it is lower on the pandering scale then they are used to.
it actually mirrors the treatment of misogyny and early feminism very well. (misogyny is religion in the comparison, before I get telegrams)

[Myveria]

It's not.

It's the loudest of the loud and the extremist of the extreme that are giving it a bad name, like pretty much anything else.

Exactly.