Sorry, Richard Dawkins, but you did not actually hurt my feelings

[rug]

By Amanda Marcotte
Tuesday, August 5, 2014 8:05 EDT

I try not to just keep hammering at stuff like Richard Dawkins trolling feminists, especially since I’ve said my piece and Dawkins continues to be too addicted to accolades from misogynist creeps on the internet to bother addressing anyone’s actual criticisms of him, but fuck it, sometimes you have to get back into the melee. Dawkins is being particularly disappointing this round because he’s hiding behind a gambit so transparent that every shitty 18-year-old boy who wants to win an argument with his girlfriend resorts to it: Telling you that you’re too emotional to be reasonable and he alone possesses access to objective reality above emotion. That this tactic is highly gendered should not be treated as a coincidence. Claiming to simply be more reasonable and declaring victory is possibly the most common way men on the losing side of an argument with women try to regain the upper hand.

To be clear, Dawkins is definitely too smart to openly invoke the idea that women are irrational and overly emotional while men need to offer us calm, rational reasons our feelings are wrong. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s a nasty stereotype that serves more to get “hell yeahs” from men who really want to believe women are inferior than to actually forward the conversation. But instead of continuing to gab, I’ll share some of the piss-poor arguments he’s offering. From his half-assed defense of himself on his blog:

There are those whose love of reason allows them to enter such disagreeable hypothetical worlds and see where the discussion might lead. And there are those whose emotions prevent them from going anywhere near the conversation. Some of these will vilify and hurl vicious insults at anybody who is prepared to discuss such matters. Some will pursue active witch-hunts against moral philosophers for daring to consider obnoxious hypothetical thought experiments.

He uses a lot of words to make this seem smarter than it is, but the basic idea is contained in here, which is that his critics are too “emotional” to understand reason. Then there’s this:



Same idea, trying to argue that his critics are just being emotional fussy pants who haven’t actually considered his arguments because they’re wallowing in tears and probably menstrual blood.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/05/sorry-richard-dawkins-but-you-did-not-actually-hurt-my-feelings/

[AtheistCrusader]

1. "every shitty 18-year-old boy who wants to win an argument with his girlfriend resorts to it"

That's sexist.

[cbayer]

19. Yep, it's a sexist position held by "shitty 18 year old boys".

[AtheistCrusader]

22. Is it?

Not pulling the NotAllMen card here, but I'd like to see some data on that claim.

[cbayer]

23. Ask any 18 year old girl or any girl that has been 18.

Of course it's not all men, not by a long shot. She is making a point about a position that is taken by some boys, and unfortunately but some men, that is a way of keeping women down.

Do you disagree that that happens? Or is this just a whiney rant, as is stated below?

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Any?

"Ask any 18 year old girl or any girl that has been 18."
"Of course it's not all men, not by a long shot."

Interesting juxtaposition there. If it's not all men, but yet in a close to gender-balance mix population, all 18+ girls, then some dudes that pull this shit must really get around, to make up for all those men that don't do it, eh?

No, I do not disagree that it happens, but the rate of occurrence was suggested to be very high, and couched in some serious weasel words.

"Dawkins is being particularly disappointing this round because he’s hiding behind a gambit so transparent that every shitty 18-year-old boy who wants to win an argument with his girlfriend resorts to it: Telling you that you’re too emotional to be reasonable and he alone possesses access to objective reality above emotion. That this tactic is highly gendered should not be treated as a coincidence. Claiming to simply be more reasonable and declaring victory is possibly the most common way men on the losing side of an argument with women try to regain the upper hand."

What does 'every' mean in this context?
What does 'shitty' mean in this context?
And that last bit, Dawkins didn't even do. That claim presupposes that ONLY women climbed his ass over the rape/date rape comparison. That Dawkins was speaking directly to women, and only women with that tweet. You might note in the other thread, I found it objectionable as well. And not just because the issue is inflammatory within the context of the political landscape of the united states at this time.

Last time I saw the 'you're being emotional' claim was back when the Australian Pm, Gillard, was being attacked personally by some crazy dipshit, and then pop cultural references like 'gone with the wind', etc. I have no idea how widespread this issue is in the wild, because I have not seen it in the wild. Before I assume things like, that blogger's claim as true, and the connection between it and what Dawkins said is true, I need some more information.

[cbayer]

27. The dudes that pull this shit do actually get around quite a bit,

and most girls and women have run into them at some point.

What is your beef here? The author pointed out a very familiar attitude that pervades this and other societies that is meant to dismiss and marginalize women. She attributed it to shitty 18 year old boys. Honestly, I think you are just trying to find something wrong with this because she is criticizing Dawkins. If that's the worst thing you could find in her article, then perhaps we should just leave it at that.

I'm not interested in having a debate with you about whether Dawkins was right or wrong. You can parse his words and come to his defense all day long. It's a truly lonely position to take, but have at it.

BTW, I think using the term "whiney rant" is just like "you're being emotional".

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Again, I don't know how she defines 'shitty' in that context.

I found the claim, without some sort of identifiable boundaries in scope and scale, to be, in itself, a sexist statement. Like Dawkins, I think she should be more careful how she frames such claims.

A relevant point, given her behavior as a public commentator during the Duke Lacrosse case. Though, I can't honestly say if that instance was a purely sexist position, or possibly colored by the common American misperception or outright rejection of presumption of innocence.


I think, as I said before, what Dawkins said was deplorable with an American audience, given the current state of gender equality/rights/rape culture in the US. What could have been a perfectly logical example, became a contentious statement in its own right, simply because it's currently a cultural battle here, to establish things like consent, that date rape IS rape, that it is wrong, etc. It shouldn't be a battle, the solution should be self evident, but apparently in American society, it is not. So his comment is instantly controversial here. Shouldn't have said it. Logically sound, but politically/socially bombastic.

I'm not convinced that the poster you are referring to is being sexist in that instance. The statements by Hitchens, that Dawkins quoted, were not aimed at a female at all. So the 'emotional' rejection of a non-argument isn't necessarily a gender thing at all. So too with 'whiny rant'. A phrase I have used to describe people like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly on too many occasions to count.

[cbayer]

30. What Dawkins said was deplorable with any audience.

As you said, he needs to stay off twitter.

As has been discussed here many, many times, it is often very difficult for those that hold certain positions of privilege to recognize that privilege or recognize the prejudice against others who do not share their position.

That goes for christians in the us in regards to other believers and non-believers, and it goes for men in regards to women.

Trying to defend what others feel represents prejudice, when one holds a certain privileged position, is probably not a good idea.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. I don't agree.

As a society, I think we should, in fact, discuss controversial things in such terms. The more controversial, the better. These subjects should not be off limits, just because there are people who do, or have suffered from the idea being discussed. (Though it should have consent of all participants in the discussion. Trigger warnings, and other common human courtesies.)

Where that failed, is it was the entire conversation. So it became about just that issue, which as you know, is a highly contentious subject in the US.

[cbayer]

32. You don't agree with what?

I don't know what you are addressing here at all. My thoughts about points of privilege? About Dawkins staying off twitter?

[AtheistCrusader]

33. That it was deplorable with any audience.

I know debate/discussion audiences (Especially ethics-based discussions) that are fantastic free-inquiry tools for examining the merits of such a statement.

I'm not sure if privilege actually played into this instance or not. I will not venture a solid claim one way or the other on that.

[cbayer]

34. Ok, it was deplorable in any audience that includes women or any other group that may

have been subjected to rape.

Is that better? It is possible to have ethics based discussions without making comments that say some kinds of rape are worse than others. He could have used a million different examples, but he didn't. Then he just double down in his lengthy "explanation" (beware -those are scare quotes).

I wasn't talking about his privilege, I was talking about yours.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. Again, I disagree.

On two counts. First that a discussion of that nature must exclude any human that has direct personal experience with the subject. Second, that you have actually failed the test of the original statement itself. As we discussed, the criminal justice system, with penalties established by the legislature, formed of the people itself, has specified that one of the examples is worse than the other.

I think one can fairly assume that the legislature, when establishing the penalties for the two crimes, did not exclude women members of the body, or specifically women members who had been victimized, from the discussion/vote.

So yeah, no, we continue to disagree. I have never been raped, but I have been victim of other forms of crimes, and I am capable of discussing the merits/severity of the crime in comparison to other crimes.

[cbayer]

37. OMG, you are actually defending this.

I don't think we have anything to discuss further.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. I think he chose the wrong venue, audience, or both.

Or the right venue/audience, but an overly contentious subject. (And I do believe it is fair to warn people when diving into such material, first.)

But your absolute claim that it is not appropriate for any audience, period, I will strongly oppose.

If you wish to interpret that as a 'defense' of 'this', you are free to pretend so.

[nil desperandum]

2. Well

There are an awful lot of emotional fussy pants both male and female these days...so I guess Ms. Marcotte has a point in that Dawkins seems obsessed with the female fussy pants while failing to recognize the fact he's whiny little fussy pants himself....misogynist wienie that he is.

[AlbertCat]

3. Obviously

judging from this whiney rant


Dawkins is absolutely correct.... again.

[rug]

4. Yes, the poor man is the victim of witch hunts.

[AlbertCat]

7. Yes, the poor man is the victim of witch hunts.

Who said he was?

[rug]

8. He did.

Some will pursue active witch-hunts against moral philosophers for daring to consider obnoxious hypothetical thought experiments.

[AlbertCat]

10. I don't see his name

or even a "I, me, mine" in there. He seems to be making a general statement not specific to him. It's also in the future tense. But he seems to think he can include himself...with others.

and of course, some WILL pursue active witch-hunts against moral philosophers for daring to consider obnoxious hypothetical thought experiments.

[rug]

12. The dear man is too humble to refer to himself in any way but indirectly.

Meanwhile, I expect the moral philosophers are resting comfortably.

[okasha]

6. Poor widdle misogynist.

Beaten up by a whiney, overemotional, ranting feminazi!

[AlbertCat]

9. Poor widdle misogynist.

See?
No one's been "beaten up" and no one has mentioned "feminazis"

As logic and rationality fly right out the window.

[okasha]

14. Poor widdle apologist for a misogynist.

Just doesn't get it. You just made yourself complicit ("whiney rant&quot in Dawkins' sexism.

Have a nice day.

[AlbertCat]

15. You just made yourself complicit ("whiney rant") in Dawkins' sexism.

As logic and rationality still fly right out the window.


Have a nice day yourself.

[cbayer]

20. Whiney rant? Wow, way to make her point for her.

[AlbertCat]

40. Whiney rant?

Well...

It starts out all... I really don't want to BUT.... I MUST "get back into the melee" because someone quoted "accolades from misogynist creeps" on the internet.

Sounds whiney to me. "But fuck it!"

Then an admission that Dawkins is too smart to be misogynistic BUT his comments might, maybe, without evidence, get a bunch of "“hell yeahs” from men who really want to believe women are inferior" We don't know if it did.

Sounds whiney.

And it's just awful because Dawkins thinks (even tho' the rant said he's to smart to think this) women are incapable of reason "because they’re wallowing in tears and probably menstrual blood."

Whiney with hyperbole.

The rant certainly isn't as level headed as it was going for.

[cbayer]

43. And you continue to make her point for her!

Keep it up.

[hrmjustin]

5. Smart man who says a lot of dumb things.

Then again I say dumb things at times as well.

[AlbertCat]

11. Smart man who says a lot of dumb things.

I don't think he's said a LOT of dumb things.

And I don't think he's the rabid misogynist, or the radical atheist people like to interpret him as being.

It's sorta become a pass time to over-interpret and look for bad stuff in anything he might say or do. That's something that happens to lots of public figures all the time.

[hrmjustin]

13. On this we disagree.

[cbayer]

21. What's a "radical atheist"?

He may not be a "rabid misogynist", but do you think he might be a misogynist?

And he has put his foot in his mouth repeatedly recently, particularly when he uses twitter.

He seems to go out of his way to be outrageous and then puts out a whiney rant when people take him to task for it. That's something some public figures do, but generally not to the degree he does it.

Hang on to his coattails if you wish. It's going to be a long slide down.

[AlbertCat]

39. he might be a misogynist?

Having read 5 or 6 of his books, and seen him many times on TV and the computer, I really doubt it. Judging people by their twitter account is pretty outrageous.

[cbayer]

42. It's not just his twitter account, though I think that is a reasonable thing

to include when assessing his attitude towards particular things.

You don't see his sexism? That's unfortunate. More and more people recognize it, including former fans.

But then there is that whole point of privilege thing. It's often hard to see what is really going on when you share the same point of privilege with the offender.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. I really think he should stop using Twitter. Like seriously.

One can only credibly toss so many lead balloons that might have longer, reasonable expectations, before one isn't taken seriously as anything but a outrage troll.

[hrmjustin]

26. I agree. Twitter does not allow for context.

[cbayer]

28. On this, we absolutely agree.

[AlbertCat]

41. Twitter does not allow for context.

But it apparently allows for the judgement of how someone feels about all women.

Huh....

[cbayer]

44. If someone were to make a judgement based on a single tweet,

Last edited Fri Aug 8, 2014, 03:51 AM - Edit history (1)

I would agree with you.

But when one draws a judgement based on a series of events that includes things posted on twitter, that is a different matter.

You don't see his sexism? You are part of a shrinking group in that regard.

[opiate69]

16. Amanda Marcotte???

Amanda "rape-loving scum" Marcotte???

[rug]

17. Oh, the Duke case of 2006.

She's better known for this.

Marcotte has given presentations at Skepticon, SXSWIII, Women In Secularism 2, and SkepchickCON. She is on the speakers bureau of the Secular Student Alliance.

[cbayer]

18. Yep, she made strong statements about the Duke LaCrosse case.

Do you disagree with her position on this?

How about her other positions?

[AtheistCrusader]

36. "Strong"? I would have said "deplorable" at best.

[cbayer]

45. Meh, there were a lot of strong feelings on both sides of this case.

I think most feminists saw her point and essentially agreed.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. But they were entirely innocent. The Prosecutor committed a crime. The media, her included,

convicted them in the sphere of public opinion.

That was pretty vile.

Edit: To say nothing of the women who came after who WERE attacked, whose stories were subsequently questioned because of fiascos like this case.

[cbayer]

47. And many, many people jumped to conclusions without knowing the facts.

That happened on both sides and many unfortunate things were said about the students and about the strippers.

Frankly, this could have gone either way, but the public loves to prosecute and convict (or exonerate) without having any evidence.

She was one of many, but that doesn't (or shouldn't) discredit her.

[AtheistCrusader]

48. You are incredible.

[cbayer]

49. Thanks!

[Starboard Tack]

50. That's what I tell her, every day. nt.

[AtheistCrusader]

61. Probably not with the tone of voice I used.

[Starboard Tack]

62. True that. It's a survival thing.

[ZombieHorde]

51. I'm not sure where the sexism is.

The posts are not mentioning a gender, they are mentioning a behavior that can be performed by any conscious person.

[rug]

52. It's in the context of his recent rape remarks.

He received enormous blowback over them and his response suggests people were emotionally judging his words. Given the subject, there is sexism involved. What is it that's said about being tone deaf? That it's the result of privilege? There is gender privilege at play here.

[ZombieHorde]

54. Ah.

I didn't see the rape remarks.

[cbayer]

53. Well, the context is that it was women who were really angry at his most recent

foot in mouth tweets. And his response to those who were offended is what she is talking about. He took a rather paternalistic, pat on the head, stop being so emotional response.

Women often perceive this as sexist. Men often don't get it.

[ZombieHorde]

55. I don't follow him on Twitter, so I didn't see the remarks. nt

[cbayer]

56. I don't follow him on Twitter either, but several articles about this were posted here and there

was quite a bit of discussion.

[ZombieHorde]

57. I've been a bit busy lately, so I have missed many threads. nt

[cbayer]

58. Hope it's been good busy and not bad busy.

[ZombieHorde]

59. A bit of both. :) nt

[intaglio]

60. Richard Dawkins - all the compassion and sensitivity

of a sledgehammer.

FFS, Richard, take a breath and ask someone if what you are typing is sensible before you hit the enter key.