In Rebecca Watson's experience a blog comment by Richard Dawkins encourages Atheist men to harass Atheist women, particularly feminists who speak out. I've lost respect for him.
Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and … yawn … don't tell me yet again, I know you aren't allowed to drive a car, and you can't leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you'll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.
Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep"chick", and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn't lay a finger on her, but even so …
And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.
And I was a fan of his too - so disappointing.
Very unprofessional behavior - you would think he would know better than that.
I wonder if Dawkins has been misogynistic in the past, and if so, he needs to be confronted. I have not been aware of any such problems and would be most grateful to anyone who can give me evidence of it. That episode, if true on the part of Dawkins, is a teachable moment. I have seen him be ruthless with believers and know he is capable of cutting remarks. Is he misogynistic? If yes, I will happily take him on.
By the way, earlier today there was a yellowish streak across the top of my page stating I had been blocked from this site. If that is true, you will not be able to read this message. If it is not true, then has anyone else had such a statement?
Steph, that is the point, "you would think he would know better than that." He doesn't! And clearly revealed his bigotry in relation to women. He must be held accountable because he is just the top of the heap of men and women who feel women should not complain, not be crybabies, take it on the chin, forgive and forget. These are all nonsense! As long as we continue to do that we will be victims. Language reveals values that we cannot see. As Dawkins spoke judgmentally to SkepChik, we should use language to hold him accountable, as well as let her know we stand with her on her actions. She behaved honorably and PZ appears to have realized it.
I hope this comment doesn't offend anyone because hurting anyone is not the intent behind my posting it. I'm posting it only because I think it's an interesting point of view--I'm not passing judgment on anyone who might disagree. Having said that, a few years ago I decided that I wasn't going to concern myself with any public figures. I will read what they write and listen to what they say--but I'm not going to care about them as people. I don't look at any politician as a savior and I don't idalize any athletes or singers. I can respect some of their abilities and even some of their thoughts. But unless I really know someone I won't trust them enough to feel any connection beyond the degree of respect I have for what I already know about them. I can only truly respect someone I know well enough to be able to judge their character for myself.
Sexism is just wrong
Steph, That is so true! The people who still respect Dawkins should stop doing so in light of these comments.
The definition of mysogyny is 'hatred of women' which is unnacceptable.
The word is used loosely and I don't think Dawkins demonstrates a general hatred of women here.
Recent political debate has raised questions about the definition and the possibility of redefinition by at least one publisher.
The new definition could be watered down in line with common usage.
I don't think misogyny should be restricted to cases of fully overt and intentional hatred of women any more than racism should be restricted to fully overt and intentional racial insult or oppression.
Discounting unintentional misogyny is in itself a demonstration of empathy failure. Who needs the validation of a dictionary definition to know this?
Ruth, stated perfectly and I agree 100%.
well, this has been an interesting exploration; I have read and watched all that is printed, I have written to both Skipchick and Dawkins but have not yet received an answer. I feel I/we deserve to understand what happened and why. As for myself, I have come to a conclusion that comparing one person's suffering with another needs to be challenged. Having one's nose cut off, or clitoris cut away, or locked out of access to education or resources because of gender is always a power issue. When power maintains and perpetuates, it is done through language, attitudes, beliefs, customs, traditions and values. If we want to stamp out racism, sexism, or homophobia, we have to start with language and attitudes. If it is a strange man follows a woman into an elevator and invites her to his room for coffee, he has overstepped his bounds.
I agree it was a minor judgment call, but Skipchick was proper to use it as an example of her previous lecture and to do it publicly. To do otherwise is playing the game of hint and being coquette with "I've got a secret" and not naming names is immature and nothing changes. Just simple manners should have been the issue, and a valid one.
As to Dawkins, shame on him! He should know better. I find his response crude and un-helpfull. He allowed a teachable moment slip out of his hands. How else are we going to put a stop to men following unknown women into an elevator and then attacking them, not just offering a friendly invitation. If he had an invitation for her company he should have offered it before the elevator door opened to let them in.
As to the label, "misogyny" -- it is a bit strong and it is appropriate. Dawkins can be rough at times and in this case he was unwise.
Maybe he was drunk. I make my worst decisions when I'm drunk, it's why I tried to get circumsized...again.