Adam Lee has lost it

September 20, 2014 • 1:40 pm

One of the most despicable attacks on Richard Dawkins in recent years (and that’s saying a lot!) has been posted at the Guardian; it’s by Adam Lee, atheist blogger who writes at “Daylight Atheism”. I won’t bother to dissect it in detail because reading it makes me ill. Dissing Richard is a regular thing at the Guardian these days, and there’s no shortage of unbelievers willing to answer the call. Lee’s piece is called “Richard Dawkins has lost it: ignorant sexism gives atheists a bad name.” Read it and weep. If you cheer, you shouldn’t be reading this website.

It’s one-sided, quoting only the anti-Dawkins Usual Suspects, and accuses not only Dawkins but Sam Harris of “ignorant sexism.” To do so, Lee relies on quotes that have been cherry-picked by people determined to bring down Richard and Sam.  Rather than distress my lower mesentery by going through the piece, I’ll post the remarks of one commenter:

Screen Shot 2014-09-20 at 11.40.39 AM

It’s time to end this relentless and obsessive hounding of Dawkins and Harris. People actually comb through Richard and Sam’s Twi**er feeds, looking for blog fodder: things they can use to smear these guys. Don’t they have anything better to do?

And let me say this: I am friends with both Richard and Sam, have interacted with them a great deal, and have never heard a sexist word pass their lips. (You may discount that if you wish since I have a Y chromosome, but I speak the truth.) Both have seemed to me seriously concerned with women’s rights, particularly as they’re abrogated by religion, and both have written about that. But does that count? No, it’s all effaced by a few remarks that can be twisted into accusations of sexism and, yes, misogyny, which is “hatred of women.”

These men do not hate women, and their opponents are ideologues.  Michael Nugent, head of Atheist Ireland and one of the most conciliatory atheists I know, has tried reaching out to those who denigrate Richard and Sam, asking for dialogue and requesting that the hounders behave like civilized human beings—as Nugent himself always has. No dice. For trying to be conciliatory, Nugent has been, and is being, vilified. It’s disgusting. I feel sorry for the man, who is learning the hard way that good intentions are not enough to stay a pack of baying hounds.

I’m not particularly concerned about the Death of the Atheist Movement, because I think religion is dying on its own, with or without these petty squabbles. But if there is anyone who is damaging whatever unity exists among nonbelievers, it is not Richard or Sam, but those who try to rip to pieces anyone with whom they disagree.

I have refrained from entering these squabbles, as I don’t want to run a drama site, but enough is enough. We will now return to our usual schedule.

****

UPDATE: If you want to see the many inaccuracies and prejudicial writing in Lees’s piece (note that neither I nor Richard [in the comments] accused Lee of “lying”), they are totted up by Michael Nugent in his piece,  “Adam Lee’s misleading Guardian article about Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and the atheist movement.”

 

590 thoughts on “Adam Lee has lost it”

  1. I am reminded, yet again, of the French revolutionaries once they began to purge each other. It is shameful.

      1. I don’t think you should be so dismissive of women. There is a problem; ignoring it does not make it dissappear.

          1. The radical (now orthodox) element of feminism in supposedly rationalist communities is an embarrassment to rational and intelligent women. They attempt to make “feminist” and “woman” synonyms, and stretch this further to assert that being anti-radical feminism is misogyny. It isn’t.

            They are (to borrow Haiht’s metaphor on the moral sense) a herd of stampeding elephants with no riders.

    2. In the French Revolution, people were afraid of jail (or worse) simply for not cheering for the party line enthusiastically enough.

    3. And I am reminded of Berkeley in the 60s. Talk about walking on eggs. I was actually more comfortable around the conservative students because I didn’t have to worry about every single word I said. The most innocent comment could end friendships with the liberal students. I never did get the hang of being pc, and I still haven’t. I wish I had been then like Richard Dawkins is now – brave. I don’t always like what he says, but I admire him about as much as I have ever admired a public figure.

        1. In 1964 there was a ban on political activity by students at the University of California-Berkeley. The ban existed to protect the political interests of right-wing contributors. The movement was not oxymoronically named. The protests were as much about free speech as any reaction to the banning of political activity ever was.

      2. Don’t feel too bad – in his autobiography Dawkins expresses regret that he wasn’t particularly brave at Berkeley in the 60s, either.

        It’s as a result of thinking about this recent ritual flaying that I think I’ve finally understood what’s going on with that “walking on eggs” feeling, which has troubled and puzzled me most of my life. I believe it’s an “Emperor’s New Clothes” thing.

        The key point of the story, often lost when people describe it, is that the king and his subjects have been told that failing to see the clothing is evidence of some lack of insight on their part; it means they’re either stupid or unfit for their office. Similarly, if you can get across the idea that failing to see someone else’s lack of progressiveness is such a failure of perception on your own part that is itself evidence of a lack of progressiveness, you can work wonders in crowd control. What’s more, people will internalise the deception in a way they couldn’t in Anderson’s story. Not wanting to appear unprogressive will only motivate people up to the point where compliance becomes difficult; not wanting to be unprogressive will continue to motivate long afterwards.

        Unfortunately, what helps keep this meme alive is that it is indeed possible to fail to see bigotry as a result of one’s own bigotry. (Sometimes, one’s failure to see the Emperor’s clothing is indeed one’s own fault.)

      1. I suppose “he” stands for Adam Lee. And “it” migh refer to a sense of propriety that was lost. (Just a wild guess)

      1. You (and Lee) claims Dawkins has “apologized” for a comment that now rests with the fishes. [Maybe a Wayback trawl can bring it back.]

        Lee’s claim links back to this article of Dawkins. But there is no apology there!

        What Dawkins says which may or may not address a comment about muslims is this:

        “There should be no rivalry in victimhood, and I’m sorry I once said something similar to American women complaining of harassment, inviting them to contemplate the suffering of Muslim women by comparison.”

        There are three obvious problems with claiming this as an apology:

        – No apology is issued.

        – Dawkins says that he is sorry to have invited an interpretation of a comment (“contemplating … by comparison”). The context, the whole article, makes it clear that it was an erroneous interpretation as “belittling”. That is, Dawkins is sorry for making an unclear comment.

        – The context makes it clear that Dawkins is yet again underwriting the core of his comment (however it was expressed): “But maybe you get the point? If we wish to insist (in the face of judicial practice everywhere) that all examples of a sexual crime are exactly equally bad, perhaps we need to look more carefully at exactly who is belittling what.”

        This isn’t an apology. It isn’t a not-pology. It is clarifying and verifying that the initial comment (whatever it was) stands.

    1. Just wanted to add that I’ve tried commenting on his most recent post, and it seems he’s only allowing comments through moderation that agree with his position or praise him. So much for free and open exchange of ideas.

      1. It`s either censorship there or getting called all kinds of insults by his horde.

        Also Blog writers who don`t agree with the boss get kicked out (e.g. Thunderf00t). So others know this and everybody keeps in line.

        This really reminds me of communism. Started with best intentions (sharing, well being of everyone, working together) but after some time the power hungry take over and corrupt the system.

          1. The group thinking is on FTB. Adam`s story originated from the drama there and contains their arguments.

            So even though Adam wrote the article, the sources are mostly FTB and their Twitter accounts.

          2. Even certain blogs at Patheos are like FTB. The other day I commented on Sarah Jones’ article dismantling the very core of her argument and pointing out her hypocrisy. I did it very politely, no swear words, no name-calling, no strident language. She let it stay for 3 – 4 minutes. Then it started getting many up-votes and then – gone. The other comment, praising her, was allowed to stay.
            Ironically, one of her arguments in the article was that she’s all for free speech. Yet she couldn’t let an alternative point of view stay, lest people see through what she had written. All this is in direct contravention to what liberalism once stood for. Sad.

            1. Hey Ruthlessrecluse – can you copy and paste your deleted post here – was it on nonprophet status? (unless jerry has roolz against that sort of thing)

              I am ever amazed by the accommodation of that faithiest blog. Its almost as if its on the wrong patheos channel. I have to wonder, do they have spouses or parents who are still religious that they don’t want to offend or something? It’s astounding how they’ll tie themselves up in knots and make excuses and call a poster strident or militant or some such if a reader says as much as the emperor has no clothes on

        2. Absolutely. The whole social progressive movement absolutely reaks of the ills of communism.
          It’s very pure in intention, there’s no doubt about that. But human beings just aren’t very good at genuinely caring about people who have no real connection to them. However, we’re really good at signalling as IF we do. (i.e political correctness)
          I’d say it’s almost a certainty that any movement that claims to be about equality and diversity will eventually degenerate into totalitarianism of some kind as the most powerful and influential among them will take advantage of the generosity of others to further their own positions.

      2. Just wanted to confirm this. I have gotten plenty of comments deleted too and its not something new there. When it comes to feminism and SJW issues, Adam constantly deletes comments critical of his position. At one point I think he said that he didn’t want to give misogynistsa platform to express their ideas or something like that (beause, you know, anyone who disagrees with feminist on any gender issue must hate women by default).

    1. and the original 1956 “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” (the ending here: (warning *Spoilers)

      This time it’s the pod-people attacking the good guys for being cold and unemotional.

      Don’t sleep.

    2. wow.. this is the 2nd comment that matches a comparison I had thought of many times through all this. Along with French Revolution, I also found myself comparing this zealous with-hunt type of attack to the Invasion of the Body Snatchers, specifically thinking of the ending — except I had the 1978 version in mind.

  5. Hear, hear. The violent shouting down of any who dissent from a small group’s rather narrow views is not reasoned debate but the politics of despair.

    1. Violent? Verbal disagreement, even passionate verbal disagreement, is exactly what we encourage with skepticism and rationalism. In what way is it an outrage that people expressed frustration or even revulsion in regard to a tweet or an argument?
      The hyperbole of calling that violent is unhelpful, especially when many of those disagreeing with Dawkins on the blogosphere and on Twitter were doing so while pointing out how those positions had historically harmed people with actual violence (and continue to do so as victim-blaming and little understanding of consent is dishearteningly prevalent throughout society).
      Passionate disagreement is not shouting down; it’s exactly what we want to see more of in society! Think for a moment of how absent this type of discourse is in religious traditions. We don’t all have to agree for this to be progress, and I hate to see us doing a disservice to all of that progress (much of which we owe to Richard!) by calling rational disagreements witch hunts, or labeling those who disagree with us as “thought police.”

      1. What would you call it when verbal disagreement blossoms into calls for boycott, disenfranchisement from speaking tours and meeting panels, and campaigns to get them fired from their paid employment?

        And what might you think of popular bloggers who let their comments section be overrun with hundreds of such frenzied comments, never said a word to discourage that behavior, and then take refuge behind the defense that they themselves never said such a thing?

        Are these also the types of things “we encourage with skepticism and rationalism” or is this just an ugly mob?

        1. And what might you think of popular bloggers who let their comments section be overrun with hundreds of such frenzied comments, never said a word to discourage that behavior, and then take refuge behind the defense that they themselves never said such a thing?

          I would think nothing positive or negative of them at all. They don’t police their blog. Very well, that’s data for me to consider when it comes to deciding whether to post responses or read them. But IMO hosters are not under any sort of moral obligation to police the comments that are made on their site. And for someone like Dawkins, given the traffic he generates, such a policing effort might be practically impossible.

          I wonder under what ethical or moral framework you could hold him responsible for that behavior. If Alice publishes an Op-Ed, and in response Bob publishes a nasty letter to the editor in the same paper, in what way is Alice morally culpable for Bob’s comment? That makes no sense to me.

      1. PZ attacked Dawkins many years before (“elevatorgate”) and since then Dawkins is a frequent target in PZ`s network of blogs.

        1. Yeah, I’d forgotten about that. They used to be buddies…they went to see “Expelled” together. I inferred that PZ liked the reflected glory and wouldn’t willingly damage that relationship.

          2. I have said it before, but much as Vadier casually chatted with Robespierre on the morning of his arrest, these Jacobin cutthroats will dispatch anyone daring to have a opinion different than theirs… and they will suffer the same fate as their bloodlust will lead to them feasting upon themselves.

            1. I generally think of them more as the Enragés, far to the left of the Jacobins or even the Sans-Coulottes. And also lacking a coherent set of principles compared to the more moderate counterparts. Plus the name is fitting. Though maybe “Outragés” would be closer.

    2. I’ve stopped going to Myers’s site because of his hounding of Dawkins and his i tolerance of views that are in the slightest unlike his, it seems. Shame, because he had some good things to say but recently my take away message wasn’t pleasant. He’s become boring and boorish.

      1. My interest in following science blogs began with PZ’s site many years ago. I also credit him with enlarging my views about being more open about my atheism, and for advocating humanism and more recently on advocating feminism. I credit him with my being proud to say that I too am a feminist. I will always be grateful for that.
        That said, I do agree with you on how he has gone off-balance with feminism. The slightest perception of an infelicitous comment by someone in our community is whooped and hollered at with a tone of triumph by PZ, and echoed by his many sycophants. It is sadly ugly.

        1. ” I credit him with my being proud to say that I too am a feminist.”

          Feminist men are the only way we’re going to make any progress, so glad you’re among the ranks.

          Wish po-mo crap wasn’t distorting & destroying the original message.

            1. What is po-mo?

              Post modernism. An intellectual movement characterised by radical skepticism towards Western thought which used to be trendy in France back when Don Johnson posed equally valid challenges to epistemology by going sockless in Miami Vice.

              If you even get my cultural references Adam Lee thinks you are too old to voice an opinion.

              2. “…when Don Johnson posed equally valid challenges to epistemology by going sockless in Miami Vice.”

                LOL!

                Alas, I think it’s hardly that dated, although it’s refreshing to know it’s an unfamiliar term to some now.

          3. I would have thought of myself as a feminist, but I must admit I get confused about the different kinds of feminism. Richard Dawkins recommends Christina Hoff Sommers as a feminist author, but other feminists deprecate her as an anti-feminist.

            Who, today, defines or represents the “real” feminism?

            I’m not seeking an essay in response! But perhaps some pointers towards useful blogs – um, websites – or books.

            /@

            1. Go with the dictionary definition of ‘feminist’.

              Too often, when you argue with PZ et al on a feminist topic, they will throw the dictionary definition in your face and say “what is wrong with that?” or “why are you against that?” Of course, you are not against that.

              2. Yet when Atheism+ appeared they used the reverse argument: “Dictionary Atheist!” was a frequent battle cry.

            2. You know, Ant, that’s very tough to answer. A few decades ago I might have been able to point to certain people or organizations, but for some time now I’ve ignored organized feminism.

              I suspect there are many others like me–we’ve found we can express ourselves through our votes and through our donations and through what we teach our children. There are right-minded politicians, there are people like the Gaylors and Hirsi Ali and Jacoby, there are women making statements via their actions, their work, or maybe just by speaking up when appropriate. It’s rather like the way I still consider myself a liberal, but you won’t find me at any such self-identified organization.

              Well, that’s me now. Other women will probably have different answers.

            3. Who represents the real feminism? No one, of course. Feminism is the advocacy of equal rights for women. How could anything that broad not encompass a whole range of positions on all sorts of issues? How could anyone claim to represent all of them?

              As a feminist, as a liberal, as an environmentalist, as a Jew, as an atheist, as a senior citizen, as a civil libertarian – no one speaks for me. I have beliefs in common with people who describe themselves similarly, but I have differences with all of them as well. I speak with my own voice.

              No matter what the label, it’s lazy to think the loudest voices define it. The loudest voices are just the loudest. In some cases they’re the stupidest as well.

              In my opinion, that’s what’s been going on with the whole “rape culture” discussion. A lot of colossally stupid things are being said.

      2. I used to read PZ several times a day, but my attitude changed almost instantly after he posted a story about a restaurant owner who displayed a sign on his shop during a skeptic convention saying atheists weren’t welcome. The owner had an almost immediate change of heart and apologized profusely, but PZ’s reaction was “F*CK YOU”. I thought that behavior was very tacky and not even very smart.

        1. I remember that. Hope I recall correctly.. the restaurant owner was a very ordinary sort without higher education. He actually seemed like a nice man, but he made an honest mistake and corrected it. I would eat there.

      4. I also went to Myer’s site frequently, but I stopped when he started attacking Dawkins in such a ridiculous way. The only FT blog that I follow now is Aron Ra. Myers is a bit like a driver who is perfectly polite until he gets behind the wheel then becomes completely crazy, a Jekyll and Hyde character.

        1. I stopped when the commentary slid into the gutter.

          When an acceptable reply to a dissenting opinion became, “F— YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!”

          Complete waste of time.

      5. I stopped going to PZ’s site long before he took aim at Richard Dawkins, simply because every discussion seemed to turn into a shitfight and then a witch-hunt. It seemed to me that the commenters had lost all sense of humour and proportion and were starting to look like a witch-burning religious mob. ‘Tear him for his bad verses!’

        I suspect this comment infringes one of CC’s roolz but in the current thread I’ll risk making it…

        1. Same for me.

          Back when Thunderf00t was expelled from FTB and as the discussions there shifted towards ugliness, misrepresenting peoples views, giving the worst interpretation to (even mildly) dissenting views and generally encouraging a mob mentality that silenced dissent, I thought “this is not the place for me nor something I want to encourage, I’m an atheist specifically because I was exposed to open, free and thought provoking arguments”

          And I stopped reading FTB, delete the link and was done with the likes of PZ.

          I accept that people define “Atheist culture” as many different things, but for me, it should first be about encouraging the free exchange of ideas, even (perhaps especially) those ideas critical of our most cherished beliefs and values.

    4. Why? Myers has been bashing people for years, sometimes with disregard for the facts and your average fan was rather too taken with the mask of intellectual integrity his status as a scientist gave him.

      This is typical Lee and he is far from unique. It irks me that this kind of dishonest, disingenuous and destructive rhetoric has been going on for three years without pushback by prominent names who prefer to take a pox on both their houses stance. “If only they’d listen to each other and debate constructively” they say. Until they become the targets and learn that you can’t reason with people for whom the only acceptable response is capitulation and eternal subservience. The ideological nature of the SJW drive should have been identified and neutralised right at the outset. Unfortunately there are a few too many ‘skeptics’ out there who have been either cowed into silence or are so full of themselves that they think it’s beneath them to get involved in the ‘politics’. Thing is, it is not political, it’s about subjecting your beliefs to scrutiny and honesty in debate and about tacking unwarranted baggage onto the label ‘atheist’. IOW it is an argument about the core principles of skepticism.

      “No, it’s all effaced by a few remarks that can be twisted into accusations of sexism and, yes, misogyny, which is “hatred of women.” “. The SJW brigade eschew dictionaries when it suits. Misogyny means whatever definition suits them at the time. Anything from being unaware of the microaggressions you are guilty of by not divining a woman’s feelings to bombing a womens’ shelter. One minute they are assigning collective responsibility to all men for stopping rape and when challenged they claim their feminism is all about women being recognised as people too. You can’t have any meaningful dialogue when the opposition play fast and loose with definitions.

    6. I am afraid that PZ has rather let “fame” go to his head. He used to be far more rational. I don’t go there any more, but if he’s getting stuck into Richard then things are even worse than I thought. How childish. Picking pointless fights with others over minor disagreements in order to aggrandize himself is a self defeating policy. In the end he’ll be remembered for all the people he hated, not for all the religion he debunked.

      1. I don’t think he is ‘popular’ outside of his circle.

        Big fish, small pond; he’s like the kid who thinks he’s popular until he leaves school and realises nobody gives a damn how many touchdowns he scored or who he took to the prom.

        1. Maybe he realised he’d got as famous as possible being rational and decided to move on to demonizing the more famous to try to take the next step. I used to frequent Pharyngula; in the early days he was very good, but he lost the plot after the first Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne where I met him. By the second one he was a different person, standoffish and on the way to being an arsehole. Maybe the stress of fame for someone who’d previously just been a minor biology professor, was too much. It is sad, but of course he had no free will about how it would pan out. 😉

      2. “Marella on September 20, 2014 at 4:45 pm
        I am afraid that PZ has rather let “fame” go to his head. He used to be far more rational. I don’t go there any more,”

        Yeah, he’s really too full of himself now. Phyrangula used to be my go to blog. Not anymore. He’s exchanged rationalism for hair trigger outrage. And he isn’t as versatile as he thinks, as shown by his awful book of warmed over blog posts – I had hoped he’d write a real book even as my interest in him was waning.

        1. “He’s exchanged rationalism for hair trigger outrage.”

          That is a very concise way of summing up the gist of PZ’s site now.

          I stopped visiting quite a while ago and it’s fascinating to read just how many people came to the same conclusion.

    8. Yup, count me to the growing crowd of people who once read PZ with pleasure, but are now totally appalled by what he grew into: a boorish, arrogant, take-no-prisoners warrior fighting everything that’s not in line with his views.
      Pathetic to see a grown and well educated man behave so childish. It’s sad.

      I still check him out every now and then, but I usually regret it afterwards.

      In fact he recently attacked exactly the stance that Jerry took in this post .. to quote PZ:

      “I’m going to have to insist that either you have [Adam] Lee arrested right now for lying, or everyone is going to have stop making those accusations on blogs or on twitter”

      So he’s telling Jerry what not to blog about, which is against the Roolz! Doesn’t he know the Roolz? (Okay, he didn’t post it on Jerry’s website, but still)

      1. “Yup, count me to the growing crowd of people who once read PZ with pleasure, but are now totally appalled by what he grew into: a boorish, arrogant, take-no-prisoners warrior fighting everything that’s not in line with his views.”

        I find that this might be a bit of willful blindness from your part. Remember, PZ Myers was the guy who stirred up the Catholics by manhandling a cracker. He’s always been a boorish, arrogant, take-no-prisoners warrior fighting everything that’s not in line with his views. PZ didn’t change his style. People like it when they agree with him and are annoyed when they don’t.

        1. I think your example is poorly chosen. “Manhandling” a cracker while simultaneously “desecrating” a copy of The God Delusion was a clear statement that ideas deserve no special respect. This is rather different, it seems to me, from the hair-trigger outrage responses he’s been focused on in recent times.

          1. Different ideas in question. I agree with the general sentiment from Ophelia’s side on this, but I cannot follow the discussion over all the different social media to corroborate both sides’ claims to my satisfaction. However from what I see, PZ’s attitude hasn’t changed, his targets have.

            2. How long have you been looking at his site?

              It’s wildly different than it was when I started viewing it. Hugely less rational than it used to be.

              And the comments section? Why bother looking?

  7. The dogmatic purity demands and hair-trigger hypersensitivity of some people in the atheism movement remind me all too much of the religion I left after forty-odd years. Preachers in one schismatic branch of a nineteenth-century awakening movement of Scandanavian Lutheranism condemn those in a competing branch as heretics, for reasons nobody can clearly articulate.

    I was reading through comments today on another popular atheism website, and the infantile vitriol was just disgusting. With friends like those, Sam and Richard and others who dare to (gasp!) speak their minds are probably asking, who needs enemies?

    1. It is exactly the same impulse to be more holy or pure than others, that leads to this foolish behaviour. The urge to outdo one’s supposed comrades leads to one-up-manship and finally war as disagreements become crimes. The religious are at least prepared to forgive; any act of repentance by an atheist is just as likely to lead to fresh recriminations that it wasn’t sufficiently contrite. People need to read “Self-Compassion: Stop Beating Yourself Up and Leave Insecurity Behind” and then apply it to others as well. If you can’t be friends with anyone who ever made a mistake you’re going to be damned isolated.

      1. Another good read might be, “Mistakes were made, but not by me.” I see so many of these huge rifts developing from what starts out as a fairly minor disagreement, then grows until people just get so entrenched with their side of things they feel they can’t reconsider or compromise without losing face.

        1. Yes. Somebody has got to admit when they are wrong. I see no sign of that in this situation, however.

      2. “The religious are at least prepared to forgive;”

        Well, certainly some of them are. I’d just guess that forgiveness (and charitable instincts generally) are a facet of individual character and probably not closely correlated with religiosity or lack of.

      3. It is exactly the same impulse to be more holy or pure than others, that leads to this foolish behaviour. The urge to outdo one’s supposed comrades leads to one-up-manship and finally war as disagreements become crimes.

        I think such behavior is hard to stop in any movement, but it has more to do with good intentions than an attempt to one-up. The people who are activist are, almost by definition, the folks who give a very high priority to action and speech on their issue. The nonactivist supporters, again almost by definition, are the ones who give a lower priority to action and speech on the issue at hand (often in a “yes I’d like to do more, but I have bills to pay…” sort of way). I think there is always going to be some friction between the two groups, with the activists seeing the less activist supporters as not prioritizing a critical issue high enough, and the nonactivist supporting feeling as if they are being pounded or harangued unfairly for not contributing enough when they are, in their minds, doing what they can.

        The result is a lot of good caring people fighting, because they have different priorities and the nature of a high priority issue is such that, psychologically, we often feel like others are making a big mistake if they don’t prioritize issues the same way we do. And I think the pattern repeats itself in pretty much any movement where you have a core set of people who are highly activist and a broader range of peoeple who are far less activist. There’s always going to be friction between the two.

  8. In 2000 years no one will remember an iota of this nonsense, they will only remark that this was the century that broke the spell of religion. Dawkins and Harris, among many others, will have the privildge to be remembered for being an integral part of this awakening.

        1. What, I have you running scared now?
          Who knew I had such powerz 🙂

          But seriously, yes I am aware that some people try underhanded ways of shutting conversations down. The only response is to not let them.

              6. “The way he blithely characterizes any and all feminists.”

                This is the sort of problem I was alluding to…searching for an insult in the blandest of statements.

                My comment pertained to discussions, not feminists, when I said “any discussion”. And this short sub thread proves the point.

              7. I wasn’t searching for an insult, I was supporting Grania. Who wasn’t searching for an insult, either.

      2. Greg is right, Grania. These folk are so intensely toxic that they unfortunately silence natural allies who happen to be male, white and “old “. I’m one.

        1. Yes, I am aware of that and I know exactly what you mean. But then the case isn’t that men can’t talk about feminism, it is that in certain circles only certain viewpoints are accepted. So it is overstating the case to say you can’t talk about it. You are both here, talking about whatever you want.

          1. “You are both here, talking about whatever you want.”

            You’re right, it’s not a physical silencing of us, but it is a bit of a social silencing. Those of us who support feminist causes are shocked when we get lumped in with all the others who want to keep women barefoot and pregnant.

            1. Yes, I know and I agree with you. I also know that it is pretty horrifying being vilified for asking perfectly legitimate and reasonable questions. But I have seen it happen to women as well as men in the last few years. It is not only men who have felt silenced by this.

            2. Gender power is a tricky issue. But a male who says at the very start that they will get push-back about even bringing up feminism is sort of asking for push-back, aren’t they?

              1. Perhaps, unless it causes the normal sources of push-back to engage in a bit of self reflection.

                But my words of wisdom were really directed toward males.

            3. “You’re right, it’s not a physical silencing of us, but it is a bit of a social silencing.”

              I’ll refrain from noting that “social silencing” is a big part of what women would like to overcome themselves. Oh, wait.

              We don’t make as much noise, but there a still many (now) old-school feminists, men and women, who abjure the po-mo crowd.

              1. There’s a fallacy on display here.

                The existence of various forms of discrimination against women does not negate the fact that what you call “the po-mo crowd” has effectively managed to silence many of the old-school feminists who are disqualified by virtue of age, gender, and sexual orientation.

              2. I would never say they had. In fact, I thought I’d been saying exactly that about “the po-mo crowd.”

    2. From a certain male’s comment in response to another male’s dismissive Youtube video posting about Rebecca Watson, I gather that a female will engage in any discussion of “masculinism” at no less such a peril.

      (One never hears the word “masculinism” mentioned. Is it because it is synonymous with the status quo which apparently has always obtained? Spell check recognizes “feminism,” but not “masulinism.” 😉 )

      To presume to censor his dulcet comment a bit, he said words to the effect that she needed to shut her “—- holster.”

      I haven’t exhaustively read or listened to Ms. Watson, but have her opinions been so provoking as to warrant that sort of noble, congenial response? What sweet such sentiments I’ve heard Ms. Watson herself utter have been her quoting males’ comments directed at her.

      1. One never hears the word “masculinism” mentioned. Is it because it is synonymous with the status quo….

        Maybe it’s because it’s too hard to say.

        😀 rimshot!

  10. Agreed. I am disgusted by the behavior of those who claim to be promoting feminism by feverishly poring over sentence fragments to see if they can be parsed into meaning something that fits their narrative of suspicion. How any of them think they are actually improving anything for women by trying to convert the arena of ideas and debate into a safe room for infants is beyond me.

    6. » Grania Spingies:
      feverishly poring over sentence fragments to see if they can be parsed into meaning something that fits their narrative of suspicion

      That is very well put! I have been thinking about, and looking for, something like this for a while, so thank you! 🙂

    7. For some reason this reminds me about good management practices in a business. When an employee screws up, it is rarely the ‘right move’ to excoriate them in public. You wait for the appropriate time and discuss the error in private. You negotiate a future solution so it doesn’t happen again, and you move on. And when you do this, you aren’t giving the employee some special treatment or some sort of unfair bye. You do it because it’s the most time-tested effective way of getting the business back on track. The blogosphere could learn something from this, I think.

  11. Thanks for ‘coming out’ and posting on this Jerry. These webdramaz only serve to reinforce what a powerful force for evil narrow-minded ideologues can be.

    Sadly, I fear that the Thought Police will only use your truth-telling as an opportunity to create clickbait posts on ‘another old, white, anti-women penis-owner’.

    1. Well, we’ve got plenty of women (and perphaps, male feminists) here to answer back.

      (Not that I think it wise to engage in any dialogue with the attention seekers…)

  12. Well said. I am convinced these articles are only published for “click bait”. I managed to refrain from clicking on the latest “outrage”. It is all becoming a bit tiresome.

  13. The latest bashing of Sam Harris in particular really bothered me. I think it’s because he’s one of the last people I would label sexist. The people putting on these shit shows are driving many people away. How many have they silenced? I’m sure they don’t care because it leaves room for them to basque in their own infamy, instead of actually saying something others may find interesting to discuss.

    It is ironic that Sam and Richard get this crap because the two of them are the most thoughtful and polite people when you see them interact with people of quite the opposite disposition.

    1. I think what bothered me about the attacks on Harris was that we’d been told for years that atheism was dominated by men because it is too ‘aggressive’ or too ‘analytical’ and it should be more ‘conciliatory’ and ‘compassionate’ – yet when Harris said his work probably appeals more to men because it’s aggressive and analytical he’s attacked for ‘gender essentialism’.

      1. At a dinner party I attended tonight, the most vocally anti-religious were women rightfully distressed over women relegated to subservient roles in major religions. Probably there are more women atheists than men. No gods exist that made those rules.

        1. Except — that polls consistentnyl show women are generally more relgiious than men.

          Hey, bring on the women atheists, please! They have more to gain than anyone. I hope their numers grow and grow!

    2. As much as I’ve learned from PZ’s Pharyngula, the first thing that started turning me off was the insistence on abusive language and vicious personal attacks. Usually the polite wishes to keep the conversation civil were met by the “tone troll” argument. Meaning, if you in any way bring up the tone used in a conversation, it proves that the content of your message must be wrong.

      2. The tone-trolling was a real issue there. There were always people who could come on to complain solely about the tone, and when asked to expand on issues, those people would do nothing more than keep that focus on the tone.

        Though that doesn’t excuse the behaviour at all. Pharyngula isn’t really a place for discussion – and sadly it took me far too long to realise that.

    3. Meanwhile, Sam’s new book, Waking Up, debuts this week in the #3 spot on the New York Times bestseller list for hardcover nonfiction.

      Too bad Lee can’t keep the fantasy confined to his novels and out of his blog.

    4. Apologies for gate-crashing your discussion Diana but I wish to say that I agree with your assessments of both RD and SH,(plus, of course, mine WEIT host too) though I only know them through their material & public personas.
      Despite telling myself that I may just be becoming too old & cynical, I can’t help feeling that there may well be a hint of thirty pieces of silver about the recent attacks & criticisms of these individuals.
      Rent a Judas?

  14. All that outrage comes from PZ`s blog network the freethought blogs (although it`s as “free thinking” as Fox News is “fair and balanced”).

    In the last few weeks over 100 hundred articles have been published there, attacking anyone from James Randi, Shermer, Harris or Dawkins (and countless tweets).

    To my knowledge the only prominent people who openly spoke against these social justice warriors were Harris http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/wrestling-the-troll and Sullivan http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/09/16/the-offense-industry-on-the-offense/ .

    All others are either scared of the SJW attack mob (and for good reason, as one sees how Sam Harris Tweets geds flooded with false accusations and accompanying “News” articles) or don`t seem to care. Otherwise I can`t understand why not more people spoke out for Harris or Dawkins last week.

      1. Thans for the link.

        This ending from Micahel is priceless!:

        “You cannot credibly promote such values in what I have paraphrased as the ethos of ‘You must be more compassionate, you fuckbrained asshole!'”

    3. Poor Sam, he has suffered grievously at the hands of lesser minds. I think he is unnecessarily fearful of the damage to his reputation. He will be remembered well, and his detractors will be mere footnotes in his biography.

  15. And one of PZ`s puppets went through the Adam Lee article and found that it didn`t had any lies in it.

  17. What one needs to understand is that all this hatred being purposely generated towards Sam and Richard has nothing to do with truth or religion or atheism.

    It’s about stirring up hatred towards men – particularly the white ones – in order to PROFIT by doing this.

    Stirring up this hatred is worth a fortune to many groups of people; such as feminists.

    But Government benefits too, because this hatred is worth billions of dollars to Government, and to the Left e.g. …

    http://www.angryharry.com/images/WhyGovtsLoveFeminismOne.jpg

    1. Angry Harry: Question – Does this ridiculous chart and crazy conspiracy theory reflect your views? Do you have evidence?

        3. That’s very un-catlike of you. I’ve watched it happen. They catch something, they play, they play, they play more- and only then is it over.
          I think I’d rather enjoy watching you do that to someone like Mr. Angry.

  19. The horrible attacks that Richard and Sam have had to endure are par for the course when it comes to feminist-inspired man-hatred.

    Politicians, authors, government officials – and, indeed, anyone who dares to state something of which feminists disapprove have been attacked, pilloried, and worse, for at least four decades now.

    Indeed, Professor Murray Strauss has described the types of chicanery in which academics themselves engage in order to support the feminist agenda.

    They include suppressing evidence, hiding data, citing only studies consistent with their agenda, falsifying their conclusions, obstructing publication of articles, blocking funding, demonising other academics and, they “Harass, Threaten and Penalise Researchers who Produce Evidence that Contradicts Feminist Beliefs”.

    1. Sorry, angryharry, but the vast majority of feminists aren’t man-haters, so your characterization is simply wrong. And any right-thinking person is a feminist in at least one sense: women should not be discriminated against in any way because of their sex.

      I’d advise you to stop posting at this point or you’ll be banned.

      1. Jerry

        ” And any right-thinking person is a feminist in at least one sense: women should not be discriminated against in any way because of their sex.”

        Totally agree.

        But feminism is no longer about equality. For some time now, it has been an ideology that has been co-opted by various groups – including Govt – to gain power – as per my earlier post.

        There are now NUMEROUS women – including Erin Pizzey (the very founder of the refuge centres for women) and Senator Anne Cools (first black female senator in N America) who are now totally ANTI-feminism as a result of what they have seen. Also Christina Hoff Sommers.

        Feminism is not about equality any more.

        And hasn’t been for a very long time.

        1. I don`t think that there is one feminism.

          Yes there are movements like you described but that`s just because they stole the label “Feminism”.

          In our societies women still are not equal in many areas and face discrimination. Still a worthy fight (and yes, there also exist areas where men are discriminated against, something these SJW don`t want to discuss).

          1. The great thing is, I see those discrepancies reported and condemned by men. I never understood feminist movements that sought to exclude men; I always saw men as great allies. But then again, I work in a male dominated profession.

        3. Feminism is like socialism; there really isn’t one kind. Socialism stretches from anarcho-syndicalism to Stalinism and feminism stretches from bog-standard universal suffrage to totalitarian extremes – but most cluster around the ‘equality feminism’ centre just as most socialists settle for a mixed economy and employment rights.

          In any case, I don’t think this is about feminism as much as opportunism. Lee’s article also attacks Dawkind for being white, and if it wasn’t that it would be for his class, his sexual orientation, his able-bodiedness, or the fact he’s still got his own hair (at which point AC Grayling would supersede him as Witch of the Week).

          Feminism is just the field of battle, not the cause.

          1. “Feminism is like socialism; there really isn’t one kind.”

            …is like atheism. Much as we might like to insist otherwise.

      2. What is feminism? When discussing feminism the first thing you have to do is agree on a definition. There is some truth in what Angryharry is saying, if a tad over the top and generalised. There is an assumption that ‘true’ feminism is all about equality but a perusal of feminist sites paints a different picture, at least for me. Obama swallows bogus statistics about college rape and wage gaps, Marxist inspired gender politics drivel has taken root on many university campuses. Critical analysis of Feminist theory brings vitriolic condemnation. There appears to be something about gender politics that shuts down the critical faculties. Gender warriors have thus far found it far too easy to send in the pitchfork brigade when challenged in much the same way that TBN hustlers pull the wool over the eyes of their flock by invoking Satan when challenged. Erin Pizzey recounts her treatment at the hands of government and academia for challenging feminist dogma. Thing is, it isn’t a new thing. Mainstream Feminism has never been only about true equality. If it was I’d have no problem with it.

        1. As elsewhere, I’ll ask again – does “masculinism” exist? Has it not always been the status quo and reflected by its subordination and subjugation of females?

        2. “Mainstream Feminism has never been only about true equality.”

          Oh, yeah? That’s not how I remember it in the 60’s/70’s.

        3. There may be some feminists who desire world domination, but you’d have to agree they are very very far from achieving it, and they will have to go through equality first.

          It is not just gender politics that shuts down people’s critical faculties. Most people can’t cope with being told anything new at all, without panicking. Tell them that the way they’ve lived their lives is unjust and detrimental to the well-being of everyone and they’re going to struggle to take it in. See global warming.

          It’s a nasty shock to discover that completely unconsciously you’ve been perpetrating evil; people don’t want to believe it. Then to be told you have to change your most deep seated assumptions about how to live can be expected to create angry resistance. All social reform movements suffer the same difficulties and for the same reasons.

        4. “Obama swallows bogus statistics about college rape and wage gaps..”
          What is bogus about those statistics? I hear those statistics, others say they are not real… What is the truth as you understand it?

          1. That the wage gap is about comparing apples and oranges. In as much as there is a wage gap it is down to things like the generally greater willingness of men to sacrifice social life for work and career interruptions for childbirth/raising children (which is an inequality which you could argue needs addressing). I’ve heard it claimed that women with uninterrupted careers have higher salaries than men on average, but I’m not sure about that.

            As regards college rape stats you only have to read the typical questionnaire the ‘studies’ are based on.

            1. Well, lets focus on the wage gap. Unfortunately both you and I have ‘heard’ different things. But I can cite a source, so there.
              It says that the situation is pretty complex. Men tend to work longer hours than women; women are far more likely to enter a job later and leave earlier b/c of child care and caring for elderly parents. So those are factors that cause much of the wage gap, and these penalize women. Too bad they have the ovaries and are responsible for carrying on the human race and basically taking care of loved ones.
              But even if one looks at women who work a 40 hr week, they still earn 88% of a man’s salary. The wage gap between men women becomes negligible only when one uses single women.

              1. What’s interesting about this is I read a really good article a few years ago (wish I had saved it) about studies in Europe (forget which country) where they discovered that women were not held back because of children because women without children experienced the same situation. I can attest to that – I’m just as educated and hard working as my male colleagues but moving up is something I’ve given up on (oh, they also say that women often just give up because it’s too much of a struggle and too disappointing to see male colleagues promoted around you constantly).

                The only way they were able to equalize things was to mandate a certain percentage of women in leadership roles – something I abhor. I suspect this approach was successful because of hidden bias – you form an unconscious opinion about what a person in a certain role looks like – you aren’t sexist, it’s just you aren’t exposed to alternatives.

                Still, I hate the thought of forcing things – then you wonder if you were really qualified or if you got the position simply because you have and extra X chromosome & I’m sure others wonder the same, which can lead to resentment.

          2. I don’t know about the former, but articles and speeches about the latter topic almost always mention that women only make 75% of what men make while discussing equal pay for equal work. Now it’s true that if you add up the pay for all men and all women, you get something like 75%, but that’s irrelevant to the equal pay for equal work, and it’s bogus to quote that statistic in support of the argument that women get paid less for doing the same jobs. When you actually consider people with the same experience and seniority, working the same number of hours, at the same job at the same company, the pay gap almost entirely vanishes.

            1. Okay, so the successful women are successful. That’s not a refutation of a gender gap. Another part of it is asking why there are more successful men than women. Why that cohort of ‘women with the same experience and seniority’ is smaller than the cohort of men with the same experience and seniority. Because it isn’t always just about hours worked or output; as Diana says, sometimes you work just as hard and just as long and don’t get promoted.

  20. I’m so sick of reading these anti Dawkins articles in the Guardian that I’ve decided to stop reading it altogether. It just makes me too angry. And the refusal to accept that ISIS is anything to do with Islam was another factor.

    And a while back, as an experiment I tried to defend Dawkins in the comments section of one of Myers’ posts. Within two posts I was called an asshole and told to fuck off. When I pointed this out I was told that if I didn’t want to be called an asshole I shouldn’t behave like one. Classic

        1. He’ll let you post your first comment so his lapdogs will turn on you but he’ll deny you the right of reply.

          He no longer tells people you are banned as he’d rather they thought you’d skulked off with your tail between your legs.

              1. I will take your word for it. I no longer comment there, and I would rather keep it that way.

  21. The brutal truth is that all males are sexist to some degree. The enlightened ones try to recognize that in themselves and consciously correct for those attitudes, but a lifetime of conditioning means that we won’t be totally successful.

    The author of this article no doubt harbors some sexist attitudes himself, maybe far more than he perceives Dawkins to hold. Many people seem to think they can get the reputation for virtue by accusing others of sin.

    I have no doubt that if Dawkins were king of the world, he would make the world a better place for women.

    1. The author of this article no doubt harbors some sexist attitudes himself, maybe far more than he perceives Dawkins to hold. Many people seem to think they can get the reputation for virtue by accusing others of sin.

      It’s the fucking Guardian; if Dawkins was a Muslim cleric calling for the death of adulteresses Lee would be telling us how it’s all Israel’s fault.

    2. We all have our biases. We can’t help them but I hope many of them aren’t unconscious biases. I’ve even caught myself thinking “huh, a female doing this – that can’t be right” and I’m a female! I heard that thought and laughed. I worked with mostly males for so long, I was used to seeing males do all the various jobs. That made me wonder how everyone else saw me.

      1. The idea of gender roles has always baffled me. Why is taking out the garbage and cutting the grass a man’s job? Why can’t I learn to sew or take short hand if I found those skills useful?

        1. I’ve never understood why taking out the garbage is such a big deal. It takes what, 30 seconds?

          Compared with any other household chore the time and effort is negligible.

          1. Yeah, I have a telescope, can’t cook and hate sewing. I also hate all the guy jobs. I want to sit on my butt and eat bon bons but I can’t do that either. 🙂

          1. IIRC, it was in The Naked Civil Servant that Quentin Crisp declared, “after three year, the dust doesn’t get any worse.” I’ve sort of latched on to that. 😀

            Or were you referring to producing less garbage?

            1. You got it right – the chores. I hate the chores. I hate them so much, that I farm most of the vacuuming out to two roombas that vacuum daily which leaves me much less vacuuming to do on the weekends. I do have the “meh, good enough” attitude with chores. Enough to be clean but we don’t have to go overboard as there are more things to do in life.

              5. Ha ha! Dyson just came out with a robotic one. Like a Roomba but Dyson. It looks pretty good – you can’t really ride it though but cats ride Roombas all the time.

      2. The point of science is that it has mechanisms for checking our biases.

        The problem with political bias is that it is immune to evidence; there’s always an alternative interpretation of facts even if you are willing to look at them.

        1. It doesn’t have to be if we are willing to be honest with ourselves but I think many don’t want to be honest with themselves because it’s too painful.

    3. I’d agree with your description of the brutal truth, but I’d venture to guess that all people, not just men, tend to be sexist. It’s easy to see other people’s flaws, and I don’t get the impression that feminists are significantly better at finding their own blind spots.

      1. I’m totally with you Adam; and I admit to harboring some sexist attitudes (though I doubt anyone who knows me would ever brand me as sexist). I clean a lot (but my wife cleans more.) I do the cooking and almost all the dishes. But she does more than me.

        I was listening to a radio prgram today about sexisim in the engineering world (and believe me, it’s still very alive and well), and the thing that floored me (as it always does) is how the women commentators felt perfectly free to make sweeping generalizations about men. I’m thinking, “really, can you hear yourselves?”

    4. Your claim that all males are sexist would be interesting if you had any evidence for it.

      Lacking said evidence, it’s pretty worthless, save for the polemical value.

      Glen Davidson

    5. “The brutal truth is that all males are sexist to some degree.”

      Sexism is a two-way street. Women have to consciously avoid broad-brush views of males as well.

    6. “Many people seem to think they can get the reputation for virtue by accusing others of sin.”

      Bingo.

  22. I’m sick of reading the words ‘white’, ‘male’, ‘heterosexual’ and ‘cis’ thrown around by people like Lee, Myers, Benson and the rest who belong to at least half of those categories themselves.

    And looking at Lee’s picture in The Guardian, surprise, surprise, he’s not a black lesbian wheelchair user.

    And if we’re unlucky he’ll live till Dawkins’ age.

    Privilege means that, all other things being equal, some groups will find life easier than others. All other things being equal, men will find life easier than woman; all other things being equal a white person will find life easier than a black person.

    But life isn’t that simple; all other things usually aren’t equal. People don’t belong to one category, they belong to several which intersect: and women from one ethnic minority are more likely to subject to sexism from members of their own group than wandering packs of cis white heterosexual men; trans* women are as likely to face abuse from cis women; homosexuals can be misogynistic (has anyone seen fucking Vicious, a rape-gag filled sitcom written, starring and targeted at gay men?); feminists can be homophobic; homophobia is higher among ethnic minorities than middle class whites; middle class women can be prejudiced against working class men.

    And privilege is also situational; a black man will find life easier than a black woman – until he meets a cop.

    So ‘privilege’ is a dynamic, orthogonal matrix of power, not a fucking hierarchy.

    Making assumptions when you don’t know where everyone is on every axis of privilege is just fucking ignorant.

    1. Ummm. . . it’s not on to wish somebody to die young at this site. Cursing isn’t really approved of either, though it’s not illegal. But do NOT say you wish somebody will die. In general, this comment could have been made much more civilly.

            1. They do have a lot of sensationalist click-bait these days, but I can’t think of a UK news site that’s better. And George Monbiot is the most respectable journalist I know, with articles that are almost uniformly well-researched and well-argued. (That said, you could just read http://www.monbiot.com rather than looking for his articles in The Guardian…)

  23. The atheist movement (whatever that is), as all other movements, have people who have reached the mountaintop with their hard work, talent and personality. People such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Coyne, Harris, Ali, etc. have written books and/or run websites, debated, given talks, etc. They have garnered the respect of friends and enemies alike.

    Others would like to be on that mountaintop. But maybe they don’t have the talent or the personality or don’t want to do the work to reach the top of the mountain. Instead they want to, indeed feel they have to, pull those people down so they can feel elevated higher than they are. It’s human nature. Once these people realize they can’t be a Horseman, they try to unhorse those that are.

    1. Quite right too. We certainly have at least one “unhorseman” of the atheist apocalypse. I’ve been saddened to see poor Michael Nugent slowly learning the lesson that being reasonable, polite and moderate counts for nothing with the FTB cult. I expect Jerry will find out too when he becomes witch of the week at FTB for the crime of defending RD.

  24. Thank you, Jerry.

    I long ago declared that I would not wish to go on living if I found myself in a world dominated by people who no longer care about what’s true and express open contempt for factual evidence. Either a 1984 world where the Party in power is the sole arbiter of what is “true” and enforces it with violence; or a world where truth is whatever society deems it to be, regardless of evidence, and where dissenters are ruthlessly punished by vitriolic abuse or ostracism rather than violence.

    I fear we are sleepwalking towards that feared world, where people shun evidence and despise facts: a world where dogma is king, emotion is queen and evidence is exiled; and where dissent from orthodoxy is suppressed by verbal if not physical jackboots.

    Richard

    1. “where people shun evidence”

      I don’t think that most people shun evidence, but rather they don’t have an understanding of what constitutes evidence. And it’s not clear to me that this has changed much over time.

      1. I don’t think that most people shun evidence, but rather they don’t have an understanding of what constitutes evidence. And it’s not clear to me that this has changed much over time.

        I honestly think it has changed; I’ve praised Why Truth Matters repeatedly (and still do – but buy it second hand) and it’s hard to reconcile that book’s incisive attacks on epistemic relativism with it’s co-author’s current obsession with ’emotional truths’.

        It’s like Alan Sokal taking up postmodernism.

        1. “Does God Hate Women?” is also quite good, and IIRC came out well before her current stance evolved.

          1. Yes. Iv’e likened her derailment to Cat Stevens conversion to Islam and his subsequent support of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie.

            Obviously unhinged now – but damn, their early stuff was good.

            1. IIRC, she used to make a point of trying to keep the discussions at her site civil & respectful, as Jerry does here. Then it seemed that the Ftb crowd started commenting there in numbers and she began to acquiesce to their style–so much for rational conversation. I haven’t been back for some time, now.

          2. Weirdly Benson’s co-author on that book is one of the people she now demonises as a misogynist for mysterious reasons of her own. It s very sad.

      2. I reasonably suspect that Professor Dawkins would have near if not at the top of his list of those who shun evidence creationist geologist Kurt Wise who, by virtue of his Harvard Ph.D. under S.J. Gould, surely understands what constitutes evidence.

    2. I fear we are sleepwalking towards that feared world, where people shun evidence and despise facts: a world where dogma is king, emotion is queen and evidence is exiled; and where dissent from orthodoxy is suppressed by verbal if not physical jackboots.

      I’m betting that within the hour that ’emotion is queen’ line will be quoted out of context and used as evidence of gender essentialism.

      1. Agree. I went quickly from – “that’s such a nice bit of royal imagery” to “uh oh.”

    3. Professor Dawkins, I greatly encourage you to tweet support of Phil Mason @thunderf00t who twitter has suspended over what seems to be his insightful critiques of Anita Sarkeesian in particular and Feminist Theory in general.

      [tendentious video and twi**er addresses removed by Management]

      1. Um, I have not followed the thunderf00t story with great precision, but as I understand it he keeps a large following of MRA types around him. I can see why Twitter would not want him posting. I think its because his gang of thugs who say ban-worthy things go with him.

        1. Oh noes! MRAs!!!! Get to your fainting couch!

          These would be the same MRAs that advocate passage of the Equal Rights Amendment?

          Ya really. Google that. Paul Elam worst MRA of all forever Equal Rights Amendment supporter.

          1. In the 80s, I was a card-carrying separatist radfem. At a women-only music festival in the US, I asked someone about the Equal Rights Amendment, and whether the US had any chance of it finally passing.

            She told me that US feminists no longer wanted it to pass because equality would mean they would not be able to discriminate against men at their women-only events.

              1. That’s a good point actually. After hearing that woman’s explanation, I’ve been assuming that that’s why feminists no longer fight for the ERA (as far as I know – maybe some somewhere ARE fighting for it – I hope so).

                It makes sense though. The ERA, if it were to pass, would mean no more women-only spaces/events, as well as they would have to accept equality in things like family court cases, shelter accessibility, etc.

              2. Yes, it would mean that no more women only nonsense would occur. Do you have *any* evidence that women felt that giving up such a limited thing like forbidding equal rights to men in court cases, in rape cases, was worth throwing the ERA away?

                In my experience, feminists, including me, no longer fight for the ERA because it would never pass as long as there are more interests for limiting equal rights for everyone than are for equal rights for all. It has become a war of attrition, a sad thing but a reality. Women have just got the right to be paid equally in the Lily Ledbetter act, which is again, a sad thing. I hate gradualistic policies but that seems to what we are stuck with.

              3. “Do you have *any* evidence that women felt that giving up such a limited thing like forbidding equal rights to men in court cases, in rape cases, was worth throwing the ERA away?

                In my experience, feminists, including me, no longer fight for the ERA because it would never pass as long as there are more interests for limiting equal rights for everyone than are for equal rights for all.”

                I presented an anecdote. It’s not evidence, just part of my experience. You also presented your experience rather than evidence. Is there an anecdote that goes with that?

                I think it’s the feminists who don’t want it to pass. You think it’s people against equal rights who don’t want it to pass. If your belief is true, then why aren’t the feminists at least trying to get it to pass? Just giving up because they assume the opposition will be too great? I think feminists would be at least writing articles promoting it if that were the case, yet they aren’t.

              4. I have presented what *I* believe which is evidence that not *all* US feminist do what was claimed.

                Again, it doesn’t matter what you may think, but what you can support. Again, do you know anything about what NOW and other women’s groups are doing? You can see it here, where people *are* supporting it: http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/supporters.htm

                and how they are: http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/congress.htm

                It is extraordinarily hard to alter the Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/. Considering the conservatives in the US House and Senate, do you now understand why this is taking a long time?

              5. It’s good to see that some people are still trying to get the ERA ratified. I notice you refer to ‘people’ instead of feminists now. That’s fair, since both promotion and opposition consists of more than only feminists.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment says that the opposition to it have concerns about women being drafted, losing the court’s bias in family matters, and even concerns about the possibility of all washrooms becoming unisex.

                That backs up my anecdote, but only in showing that it’s more than just one woman’s opinion, and it also shows that some people (including men’s rights activists) are indeed still fighting for it, which is good to know.

                Nowhere, either on wiki or your links, does it show that opposition to the ERA is due to concluding that it is a fight that can’t be won. You said feminists gave up on it “because it would never pass as long as there are more interests for limiting equal rights for everyone than are for equal rights for all.”. I see nothing that backs that opinion up.

                Anyways, I am not saying that my anecdote is evidence of what ALL feminists think. You presented links, but those links only show that some people still want the ERA to pass. Nothing to show that its opposition decided that it’s a fight that can’t be won so why bother.

                We have very different ideas of what constitutes ‘evidence’. While glad that some people are still fighting for it, can you show me where your opinion that it’s an un-winnable fight and that that’s why some feminists oppose it?

              6. Oops, “can you show me where your opinion that it’s an un-winnable fight” should have been “can you show me links backing up your opinion that it’s an un-winnable fight”.

              7. Rereading what you wrote: “Do you have *any* evidence that women felt that giving up such a limited thing like forbidding equal rights to men in court cases, in rape cases, was worth throwing the ERA away?”

                I made no mention of rape cases, so I’m unsure of what you are referring to.

              8. I know it’s good that people are still trying to get the ERA passed. This shows that your claim that they aren’t is false. If you note the list of supporters, you will see that NOW is there. Are they or are they not feminists? I have not changed what I have said. You claimed that “feminists no longer fight for the ERA”; with no qualifying words this indicates that you are sure that *all* feminists are no longer doing this and that is wrong.
                You seem to be intent on redefining the term “feminist” to only be those people you fantasize are standing against the ERA. That is unfortunate.
                Why yes, the wiki entry says that opposition has various concerns. Are these concerns from all feminists as you have tried to claim? From the wiki entry, it seems not: “Defending traditional gender roles, Stop ERA advocates baked apple pies for the Illinois state legislature while they debated the amendment and hung “don’t draft me” signs on infant girls.” Do feminists defend traditional gender roles? Now, if we follow the link that the wiki article footnotes, we see that the person who was defending traditional gender roles was Phyllis Schlafly, the leader of the Stop ERA movement. http://www.ushistory.org/us/57c.asp You may see her quotes about these issues here: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly We see that it was Ms. Schlafly who was saying that women shouldn’t be drafted, that women should only be wives and mothers in the home, etc.
                Can you show where Men’s Rights Advocates are fighting for the ERA?
                It’s rather amusing to see you try to claim that since what I have said wasn’t exactly typed verbatim on the wiki page or other links, that means it’s wrong. I was wrong in saying that the ERA has been given up on, however I am not wrong in that there is nothing to show that it will pass and that is because there are more interests for limiting women’s rights than there are wanting equal rights for all. Or can you show that the movements to expand rights are more powerful than the opposing forces?
                You said ““That’s a good point actually. After hearing that woman’s explanation, I’ve been assuming that that’s why feminists no longer fight for the ERA (as far as I know – maybe some somewhere ARE fighting for it – I hope so).It makes sense though. The ERA, if it were to pass, would mean no more women-only spaces/events, as well as they would have to accept equality in things like family court cases, shelter accessibility, etc.” Again, you did nothing to indicate that there were only “some” feminists. You have said that since feminists no longer fight for the ERA and that it “makes sense” because you wish to claim that feminists (not some, but all) want women only spaces, equality in family court cases, shelter accessibility, etc. You didn’t mention rape, I did. I mentioned it because you created a list of rights that your fantasy feminists (and likely some very real ones) wouldn’t want men to have.
                Evidence is evidence, SI. It’s defined in the dictionary and alas, your unsupported claims that all feminists do “x” is not evidence. My affirmation that I am a feminist and that I do not believe as you claim I do, is evidence.
                I know that humans love to claim conspiracies. I think it’s based in the same reason humans love religion; it makes one feel that one knows more than everyone else. However, unless you can support your conspiracy theory that feminists no longer fight for the ERA, and that they do so because they don’t want to allow men to have equal rights in custody cases, you have nothing. Good bye.

              9. Wow, way to avoid what I asked you!

                I never claimed “all feminists”, only the one who I talked to about it. And I hoped, and was happy to acknowledge, that some people, including feminists AND non-feminists ARE still fighting for it, and that’s a good thing in my view. Maybe you missed that.

                Anyways, YOU claimed that you and other feminists have given up on it because it’s a fight you can’t win. I wanted to know what your anecdote behind that belief was. You instead told me all about how feminists ARE fighting for it. So, are you no longer claiming that you and the others gave up on the fight because it’s too hard?

                Also, you asked me for evidence about rape cases being affected by the ERA. What are you talking about? You said it was a limited thing (only rape laws being at stake?), yet now you acknowledge that it wasn’t even my argument in the first place, it was yours. Why do you want me to prove YOUR claim? Then you appear to be claiming that only anti-feminists are against ratifying the ERA.

                Well, I’ve already made my points and think it’s useless to discuss this further with you. You are either avoiding or not comprehending what I wrote at best. At worst, you are switching to strawmen with a bit of a gish gallup added. There’s no point continuing discussing this with you.

        2. Uh, I have not followed story, durr, but urrr, I am told poeoele I don’t follw be deurr stupiddheads.

          durre, ban ‘dem okay wid me.

      2. This is not an appropriate comment. Don’t ask Richard to support one cause or another. And you shouldn’t embed videos in support of your “cause”. Do not post on this thread again or you will be banned.

      3. Speech and well known public company’s twitter address of twitter’s CEO and their safety committee removed by supporter of speech.

    4. Well, aren’t you a special snowflake, expecting no criticism.

      Kidding, it’s my attempt at the usual BS answer to anyone standing up for free exchange of idea.

      I’m not one who is immune to the idea of “bourgeois freedom” and that the law is the same for everyone, so that neither rich nor poor are allowed to sleep under the bridges. But any real intellectual or social progress has occurred where there was free speech, and not where everything was locked down for fear of “triggering” or fear of any sort of offense against rather select groups.

      Anyway, Dr. Dawkins, you didn’t get Expelled from that movie, but you’re sure enough Expelled from the Guardian and FreefromThoughtBlogs. Or actually, they might allow you to write at either one, only to have any supporters Expelled while they pile onto you with strawman attacks and distortions.

      Glen Davidson

    5. No ones words or actions should ever be above scrutiny. Unfortunately that is not what were seeing here – instead it is demonization and personal attacks. I think quite a few of us are getting quite fed up with it. It has reached a critical mass.

    6. Dear Richard,

      The world has always been this way. On the whole, people never have championed evidence over dogma and emotion. It’s only ever been a minority who do.

      What’s different now is that blogs and social media have amplified the voice of another minority: the vicious, dishonest, hypocritical, misanthropic prigs of the world.

      It’s not you; it’s them. I assure you that most of us paying attention know that.

    7. I think people are waking up en masse, and that the feared world won’t happen. It’s like a boil that has to come to an ugly head before it goes away.

      More and more, people are speaking up, mocking the 1984ish mindset, and disputing the lies. It can’t fester in the open. It can only dry up and disappear.

      1. I was too optimistic the other day. Replace my previous “boil” with “outbreak of carbuncles”. And maybe replace “I think” with “I hope”.

        Cup’s half empty today. The other day, it looked half full.

  25. Adam Lee is far from the only one who has lost it clearly. We all know the names, no need to repeat.

  26. It strikes me that Dawkins’s and Harris’s “sins” as seen by their critics pale besides the online (and threatened real-world) attacks on Mary Beard, Anita Sarkeesian, Caroline Criado-Perez, and others, yet those critics spill far fewer electrons on the latter.

    Stand with anybody that stands right. Stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong.
    — Abraham Lincoln, speech at Peoria, Illinois (16 October 1854)

    It seems increasingly clear that some people in “the” atheist movement seem far too intent on standing apart to remember to stand together on common ground (the occasional olive-branch notwithstanding).

    /@

    1. Nietzsche, from Daybreak:

      “…In the presence of morality, as in the face of any authority, one is not allowed to think, far less to express an opinion: here one has to obey! As long as the world has existed no authority has yet been willing to let itself become the object of critique”

      That’s what’s happening with FTB, you are not supposed to think, only to obey.

      They don’t dare to allow critiques, because most of their claims are suspect, at the least.

      Glen Davidson

  27. I’ve seen Adam Lee start out as a pretty good atheist writer back on Ebon Musings. But when he started blogging, it all went downhill. Now he’s just another PZ lackey.

  28. What’s sadly ironic is that this sort of behavior is coming from people who call themselves skeptics.

    Good skeptics value evidence, and they are aware of the danger of allowing strong emotions to hijack their reasoning.

    Yet look how Greta Christina responds at her blog to a Sam Harris quote:

    here are a lot of possible responses to this. The first one that springs to my mind, and to many people’s minds, is, “Fuck you, you sexist, patronizing asshole. You think women don’t take a critical posture? Come talk to some women in the atheist movement, and we will give you an earful of our critical posture.” The second response that springs to my mind, and to many people’s minds, is, “Do you think that maybe — just maybe — the fact that not that many women read your books might have something to do with the fact that you say horrible sexist bullshit like this, and we’re sick of it, and we don’t want to hear it, or anything else from you, ever again?” And the third response, from me in particular, is, “Do you seriously not know that the person who literally wrote the book on angry atheism — Why Are You Atheists So Angry? 99 Things That Piss Off the Godless — is me, a woman? Have you seen the cover art for that book? Would you really not describe the woman standing on the soapbox labeled ‘REASON’ with her fist in the air as, quite literally, a critical posture?”

    Greta, Sam Harris is one of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s staunchest public defenders. Do you really think he hasn’t noticed that a) she’s a woman, and b) that she’s a vocal critic of Islam?

    Please be skeptical of your own knee-jerk, visceral reactions.

    What a shameful performance.

    1. Hirsi Ali is no favorite of PC, pomo liberalism, and I’d imagine no favorite of the feminists in that camp as well.

      Ever since I read Sam’s post, I’ve wanted to know how he determines who’s reading his books? I don’t remember having to indicate a gender when I bought each of them…

      1. I think that was the reporter who asked Sam that. I wonder where she got that information. Wouldn’t it be funny if it turned out that mostly women read his books? I somehow doubt that is the case though, given that there are fewer female atheists (which upsets me).

        1. Yes, the demographics themselves suggest a male majority of readers…

          Still, I wonder if part of the impression just means that men are more vocal about it?

          1. Now, I’m visioning groups of women stealing away to read Sam’s books. 🙂

            It would be interesting to see what women in general are reading. I remember as a kid going into a variety store to buy a copy of Scientific American & being annoyed that they placed science magazines in a Men’s Interests section. Now, I can’t recall if it was actually labelled as such, but it was among light porn. 🙂

            1. No, seriously? 😉

              Sorry to say I’d be kind of afraid to find out what women in general are reading. When I’m not defending them I’m (mostly silently) raging about how dippy so many seem to be.

              But there might be good news, since there seem to be very few readers anyway these days–perhaps the women still doing so also have a brain in their heads.

              Yikes, aren’t I awful?

              1. Yes, I did actually think the same thing – I’d be afraid to hear what women are reading!

              2. Most women read the same low level crap that most men read, perhaps in different genres. I would think that there’s an equal number of both sexes reading, what I would consider decent, material and an equal number reading the dregs.

              3. Yes, I thought about that a bit last night and figured there would be a lot of men reading garbage too but for some reason the women reading garbage makes me cringe more. I think it is because as a woman, I want people to regard me as capable of reading decent stuff and to break free of stereotypes, so if women are exposed for reading crap then I think that will inform others’ opinions about women and therefore me.

              6. [OK, Reply seems to be working…]

                I’m afraid scanning the popular womens’ magazines on newsstands doesn’t seem to suggest a very high standard.
                Whereas men of course read serious stuff like cars and sports and … sports … and .. cars …..

            2. “Now, I can’t recall if it was actually labelled as such, but it was among light porn.”

              That isn’t new, as I recall the Playboy Interview (which was often a very interesting read) used to be surrounded by distracting pictures. (I only read it for the articles, honest!)

      2. Hirsi Ali is no favorite of PC, pomo liberalism, and I’d imagine no favorite of the feminists in that camp as well.

        True, but irrelevant. She’s a critic of Islam, and Harris supports her for that very reason. It’s therefore inane to suggest that he thinks women can’t “take a critical posture”, as Christina claims.

        Ever since I read Sam’s post, I’ve wanted to know how he determines who’s reading his books?

        Perhaps by observing whether most of the email he receives regarding his books comes from men or women.

        Of course it’s possible that the gender distribution of the folks who send him email differs from that of his overall readership, but if so, that demonstrates the existence of an aggregate difference between his male and female readers, which is exactly the kind of difference he is being criticized for suggesting!

        2. I love Sam’s writing and own all of his books. I’ve tried to interest some women in them to no avail. (And it’s not becuase he’s a sexist asshole — becasue he’s not and never comes across like that in his writing.)

          Why is that? Don’t know. (My wife is highly intelligent, highly educated (way more years than me), atheist, skeptic (about most things): But, no interest.

          Puzzled look …

      3. I guess I’m in that camp, as defined by you, and I’m a huge fan of Hirsi Ali. Go figure, huh? I guess stereotypes are….not exactly accurate. 🙂

  29. What’s up with the crazy idea that there is only one right answer, and only one way to express oneself?

    It isn’t that we need to accept different points of view, we need to demand them.

    Sam Harris talked about the cause of gender differences and – gasp – did so in a way that I might not have done and in words I wouldn’t have used. And somehow we are all expected to join forces and trash Sam Harris for this unspeakable crime. When I disagreed with the public pillorying on a different site, I was thoroughly trashed.

    We need to set the expectation that being an atheist does not mean we all agree. It means that we must expect others to say things we disagree with.

    1. “We need to set the expectation that being an atheist does not mean we all agree. It means that we must expect others to say things we disagree with.”

      Absolutely, this should be the default position. And I think it was, but for a single group of people who are controlling much of the conversation and for whom atheism is packaged with various ideologies.

      1. « a single group of people who are controlling much of the conversation »

        Much of *which* conversation? Michael Nugent (in a post cited elsewhere) makes the point that the “deep rifts” are quite parochial, and largely irrelevant to conversations about atheism going on in most of the world.

        /@

        1. That’s his opinion but the rift is real and tangible and deleterious.
          You know ‘which’ conversation, the one we are having here. Your group is guilty as charged.

  30. Not much to add here. I too am sick and tired of these out of context attacks, accusations of misogyny (and accusations of sexism and rape), and attempts to actually destroy people’s lives. It just boggles my mind. All coming from the same people.

    What are they hoping to achieve with these attacks? What have they accomplished up to this point outside of making people who’ve accomplished a lot of good, look bad?

    Most importantly, what do we do?

    Anyway, thanks Jerry.

  31. I accidentally posted this as a “reply” to a post to which I was not replying:

    Nietzsche, from Daybreak:

    “…In the presence of morality, as in the face of any authority, one is not allowed to think, far less to express an opinion: here one has to obey! As long as the world has existed no authority has yet been willing to let itself become the object of critique”

    That’s what’s happening with FTB, you are not supposed to think, only to obey.

    They don’t dare to allow critiques, because most of their claims are suspect, at the least.

    Glen Davidson

  32. I hate the gang mentality I see on some sites. If the big cheese has an opinion, the followers all fall in line. Woe to any dissenters.

    Hand these folks some stones and I wonder how many would stop and question before joining the mob in public stoning.

    1. Read in the NY Times a day or two ago of eight Guinean officials, etc., visiting and seeking to provide Ebola-related support to isolated villagers, getting stoned to death by those villagers.

  33. I finally deleted my bookmark for Pharyngula today after noticing the PZ led MRA upsurge over this “issue”. It’s sad, really; PZ used to be one of my heroes. As for the heroine of “elevatorgate,” I stopped taking her seriously once I noted that there were no witnesses to the incident and that no one has ever come forward or been outed as the guy who supposedly made the extremely weak pass at her. I’m not saying her story was a lie. It’s like the argument for God – you can’t prove it’s not true but there’s no objective evidence that it is. Atheists and Skeptics herded into groups are as irrational as everybody else.

    1. Would wearing miniaturized A/V recording gear be a reasonable and appropriate solution to fending off unwanted overtures in isolated, otherwise unwitnessed locations? Would certainly provide evidence, eh? Unreasonable but necessary? Another solution might be to arrange for hotel/convention security staff to provide escort.

      1. I knew I’d get at least one comment like this. My *point* is that despite that there has never been a single piece of objective evidence to verify the story, it has become the seed accusation that has driven the atheist community – or should I say mob – into an endless and proliferating war against itself. I’m sure there are many in the anti-feminist attack force who have questioned Ms W’s story, but that doesn’t mean that raising the issue of evidence isn’t a valid response when the story has become the founding myth (“myth” in the classical sense of the term) of a self destructive battle among people who
        should be working in harmony.

        1. It seems to me that you are requiring an impossible level of evidence just to find a reason to push aside the origin of an unpleasant feeding frenzy. You go on to equate it to the beginning of a myth, I guess b/c of the lack of recorded evidence.
          Please realize that unwanted proposals to go somewhere alone with a stranger at social gatherings is very common, and it can lead anywhere. That is kind of scary, is it not? I would be scared of that if I were a woman. Unfounded accusations where the woman makes it up is exceedingly rare.
          Remember as well that R. Watson brought it up to the other attendees. What reason would she have to make it up? Sorry, but that makes no sense.

      2. The actual reality of what happened in the elevator has little to do with the storm that followed.
        Many people thought her position reasonable. It was the reactions to dissenting opinions, from a position of power, that started elevator gate. The issues being discussed now, suppression of dissent, calling people ‘out’, being shy of evidence, started with Watson berating Steff McGraw. The reasonableness of the elevator comment has been used as a distraction, and strengthener of their position in a disingenuous manner.
        I have been an atheist and a person with social concerns for a long time. I came in to this online thing just before elevatorgate, as a feminist. Watching this and other feminist positions unfold I no longer regard myself as a feminist or think feminism is a fair and reasonable thing. For those ‘dictionary’ feminists, if you want to be taken seriously again,( by a growing number of feminism critics), you better get a handle on the extremes.
        To my great, really great disappointment, today’s feminism has become this way.

    2. I clearly missed something. What has Elevatorgate got to do with the original post, or with the ensuing conversation? i don’t think anyone has accused Dawkins or Harris of involvement in it, after all.

  34. Hiya Jerry,

    Well, this is unexpected. I remember when we met up for dinner in Chicago in 2011 – I still appreciate the hospitality you showed me and my wife in giving us a guided tour of the U of Chicago campus. I guess I shouldn’t expect a callback if I return to Chicago any time soon?

    You disagree pretty strongly with my article, that’s obvious. Fair enough. But you know what I noticed? You’re not the first critic who said I’m a terrible person for writing it, but who declined to say in any detail which parts of it are false (“I won’t bother to dissect it in detail”). Richard Dawkins himself accused me of lying, but wouldn’t or couldn’t say what specifically he thought the lie was.

    About the comment you quoted: Would Richard Dawkins’ statements have been less disagreeable if he were a young black woman rather than an older white man? No, of course not. But the fact that he is an older white man making these kinds of statements isn’t coincidental, just as it’s not coincidental that all of our 44 presidents up to this point have been men and 43 of 44 have been white.

    Age, gender and skin color should be irrelevant to our ability to think rationally, but they’re not. I trust you’re acquainted with the many experiments which send out large numbers of resumes that are identical except for the names on top, and which find that resumes with Anglo-Saxon-esque white-guy names invariably get more callbacks and higher salary offers than resumes with stereotypically black names or female names. Unconscious bias is an insidious force, one that affects even people who have no conscious intent of acting in prejudiced ways. Refusing to acknowledge this bias doesn’t make it not exist, it just means that it’ll have free rein to influence our decisions. And I think Richard Dawkins is unfortunately a classic example.

    As far as “relentless and obsessive hounding”: Are we not skeptics? Are we not rationalists? Do we hold our leaders as popes, as sacred figures exempt from criticism? When some religious figure says something dumb or outrageous, you can be sure we’ll all pile on him. You can hardly say you haven’t joined in on occasion. I think it’s only fair that we treat our own community as subject to the same scrutiny. Whatever the truth is, progress is made by open argument and debate however contentious, not by enforced silence.

    I’ve got one more question for you, Jerry. You say that you’ve refrained from entering “these squabbles” until now. Why was it my article that changed your mind? I’m sure you know that some of the women in our community have been regular recipients of obscene harassment and violent threats for years. As I said in my article, Amy Davis Roth opened an art exhibit this week where she literally wallpapered a room with printouts of the disgusting messages that she and others have received. I don’t mind if you criticize me, but shouldn’t you be, let’s say, an equal-opportunity sneerer?

    2. So I’m guessing your going to write an equally critical article of Dawkins critics as a follow on, or is their ideology the pure and simple truth. Guessing not.

      1. He won`t because almost all of his “sources” (especially when it comes to the supposed outrage within the atheist community) are from PZ`s blog network.

        And Lee, how about you first provide evidence for all of your claims before demanding that other`s should refute your b.s. (that`s like the Christians saying it`s our job to prove that God doesn`t exist).

        1. All of Dawkins’ tweets etc. are in the public domain. You may disagree with the context in which they are taken, but Lee’s journalism in this respect seems fair enough to me. I do not see anything factually wrong with the piece, he is not lying whatever your opinion of the conclusions he draws.

          2. Precisely – ALL of Dawkins’ tweets are out there. Yet only certain ones are selected, and taken out of context, to twist Dawkins’ point of view.

            It’s equivalent to somebody tweeting
            “Rape is not bad”
            Then tweeting
            “compared to being hung drawn and quartered”
            With only the first tweet being paraded.

            Note that with only 140 characters this scenario of splitting the whole message is fairly common on Twitter.

            1. « Note that with only 140 characters this scenario of splitting the whole message is fairly common on Twitter. »

              Which generally makes it a terrible medium for disseminating anything of import; individual tweets can easily be seen (and shown) out of context. I’d suggest that Richard might be better tweeting links to blog posts — but to do so now would be to invite his “click bait” comment turned against him. 😮

              /@

            2. This is what I hate most about discourse in cyberspace: more than the trolling, more than the personal attacks, more than the rudeness – it’s the dishonesty by people pretending that they’re having an intelligent debate, the straw men and the twisting of other people’s words.

              Trolls and idiots are easy to ignore. This is more pernicious, and depressingly, all too common even among people who ought to be better than this. But these people need to be ignored as well. If someone won’t address what was actually said but has to first distort it beyond recognition, then it’s just a waste of time talking to them.

    3. “Whatever the truth is, progress is made by open argument and debate however contentious, not by enforced silence.”

      Adam, I tried to engage you with open argument on your site, and you deleted my comments. Care to explain?

    4. Coyne didn’t say that you’re a “terrible person.”

      But yeah, you’re totally on the level.

    5. Here’s one of your lies, Adam:

      “Richard Dawkins has involved himself in some of these controversies, and rarely for the better – as with his infamous “Dear Muslima” letter in 2011, in which he essentially argued that, because women in Muslim countries suffer more from sexist mistreatment, women in the west shouldn’t speak up about sexual harassment or physical intimidation.”

      Did you get paid for your hit piece? What a worthless, sanctimonious fraud you are.

      1. Could you stop complaining about someone writing a few mean words about Dawkins when there are people getting sentenced to 1000 lashes for simply setting up a website for atheist.

        I don’t see any difference between “Dear Muslima” and what I just wrote, and as such I don’t think your example of a lie is very good one.

        1. Dawkins made fun of the fracas manufactured by a provocative videoblogger who complained about being asked for coffee in an elevator in a posh Irish hotel. Yeah, that is totally the same as opining that “women in the west shouldn’t speak up about sexual harassment or physical intimidation.”

          The fact that you don’t see the difference reflects poorly on your intelligence or your honesty.

    6. About the comment you quoted: Would Richard Dawkins’ statements have been less disagreeable if he were a young black woman rather than an older white man? No, of course not. But the fact that he is an older white man making these kinds of statements isn’t coincidental, just as it’s not coincidental that all of our 44 presidents up to this point have been men and 43 of 44 have been white.

      Have you looked in the mirror? Check your privilege.

      I’ve got one more question for you, Jerry. You say that you’ve refrained from entering “these squabbles” until now. Why was it my article that changed your mind?

      Ego much?

      If you were at all knowledgable about matters you’d know that there’s a widespread recognition of the smearing tactics of certain Po-Mo entryists (Myers, Benson and the FTB crowd in particular) on the US side of the atheist movement.

      Don’t flatter yourself you are important enough to trigger a blog post in yourself.

      1. > Have you looked in the mirror? Check your privilege.

        Uh… Yes. He did. And that observation was the result. You have no idea what that phrase means, do you?

    7. When you do your follow-up piece* on Myers and Benson are you going to bang on about their ages?

      Are you going to champion the much younger Sam Harris?

      *Okay, being sarcastic there. No click-bait incentive in tilting at windbags people outside the movement have never heard of.

    8. You disagree pretty strongly with my article, that’s obvious. Fair enough. But you know what I noticed? You’re not the first critic who said I’m a terrible person for writing it, but who declined to say in any detail which parts of it are false (“I won’t bother to dissect it in detail”). Richard Dawkins himself accused me of lying, but wouldn’t or couldn’t say what specifically he thought the lie was.

      Yeah, have you quit fornicating with farm animals, Coyne and Dawkins (thanks, Nugent)?

      Here’s a thought, Lee, you should back up your accusations, rather than demanding answers to “gotcha” questions. Sure, let’s mire the “discussion” within unevidenced and unfair accusations, rather than deal with Lee’s highly one-sided and extremely inadequately-unsupported accusations.

      It’s not for no reason that the preferred tactic is, accusation first, evidence to come along later, if ever.

      <a href="http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p&quot;

    9. Very interesting and valid points. I think my question goes a step back. Evidently pre-suppositional attitudes exist, but how do we get from that point to automatically attributing them to any and every one who doesn’t fall into certain categories?

      Does this mean my EU passport undermines anything I might say? Or is it the photo on my passport?

    10. Another lie – or, to be charitable, mistruth – from Adam Lee’s piece:

      ‘Dawkins’s very public hostility toward the people who emphasize the importance of diversity, who want to make the community broader and more welcoming, and who oppose sexual harassment and sexist language, is harming the cause he himself claims to care about.’

      This is working on the presumption that Dawkins is actually against the so-called ‘good people’, and not those who, for example, might oppose sexual harassment by claiming that another prominent skeptic is a rapist (on no more evidence than gossip), emphasise the importance of diversity and make the community broader by promoting an incestuous conference circuit which seems to largely consist of the same old contingent of Freethought Bloggers & their chums, and oppose sexist language by replacing it with violent language, wherein such gems as ‘die in a fire, no I really want you to die in a fire’ & ‘go fuck yourself with a rusty knife’ once predominated on PZ Myers’ blog. Admittedly, Myers’ so-called ‘horde’ has cleaned up its act somewhat with regards to the last point, though it’s still not all that unusual to find the odd ‘die cis scum’ & ‘I wish all white males would die’amongst the wider crowd who apparently desire to make the atheist community a more welcoming place.

      1. Do you really think Adam Lee will reply meaningfully to this? I’m betting he won’t reply at all, even though Coyne has a somewhat strict moderation policy. It’s a pattern common with the sources he cites in his article. Only discuss where you can control the conversation.

        He certainly won’t be writing any articles critical of PZ’s violent commentariat (“die cis-scum” and “old white men should die”.) for the guardian.

      2. “claiming that another prominent skeptic is a rapist (on no more evidence than gossip)…”
        I do not think that one should dismiss the accusation as ‘gossip’. What is there to gain by making a false accusation? Do you think that a woman really wants to stir up such a hornets nest? At the very least describe her side in more objective terms than just calling it gossip.

        1. Mark,

          “I do not think that one should dismiss the accusation as ‘gossip’. What is there to gain by making a false accusation?”

          Several people who are stirring up this story have been accused of sexual assault, by their own admission. PZ Myers, Lousy Canuck (Jason Thiebault) have each claimed they were victims of false accusations. Do we believe the victims?

          No? Why not?

          I think you know the answer is that people deserve their day in an actual court of law. They deserve to respond to allegations with whatever facts, alibis, witnesses, DNA (or lack thereof), expert testimony, their own side, etc.

          Trial in the court of public opinion is vicious, irrelevant, and foolish. Unless you are suggesting that PZ Myers should be looked at with the exact same scrutiny for his (false) accusation of sexual assault, you should indeed dismiss this as ‘gossip’.

          There are all sorts of reasons why men and women have made false accusations of sexual assault. Regret / buyers remorse, caught cheating, spite / revenge, explain pregnancy or STD, social norms (a la To Kill A Mockingbird), etc…

          I’m not saying I know that this story is false. I’m saying that it’s not up to me, or you, or PZ Myers to say who has or has not been a victim of so and so.

        2. “What is there to gain by making a false accusation? Do you think that a woman really wants to stir up such a hornets nest?”

          The problem I have with this line of reasoning is that it suggests that there is a gender-based difference in a person’s motivation for misrepresentation. Do men make false accusations? Might a man stir up a hornet’s nest?

          I could go with you if the argument you were countering were based on “no” answers to those questions. But that’s not the case unless I’m very much mistaken.

    11. I think your falsehood was in saying that Dawkins has “lost it” and is guilty of “ignorant sexism” because he made the banal and common-sense point that women would be wise not to get so drunk that they are easily taken advantage of, and then can’t even remember who was involved or what happened or, indeed, whether they might have consented after all.

      To say that is NOT to excuse rape in any form or fashion. The analogy to mugging would be this: suppose I (as a man) choose to get drunk out of my mind and then to walk through a dangerous neighborhood where muggings are known to happen every night. I wake up the next morning and can’t remember whether I was actually mugged or not, or even whether I had any money with me at the time. All I have is a vague feeling of unrest — maybe I had some cash and maybe I was mugged, but I was so drunk that I can’t remember anything.

      If I was indeed mugged, that is STILL the mugger’s fault. Yes, absolutely. Still, did I make a wise decision? Not really. If I had gotten less drunk, I would be better able to know whether I had been mugged and who had done it. That seems indisputably true.

      I think the real sexism here is on the part of you and your comrades — you seem to think that women are such children that even if they get irresponsibly drunk and can’t remember anything that happens to them, they have to be held on a pedestal beyond even a murmur of critique. Only responsible adults can have moral agency and can take a tiny bit of responsibility for putting themselves in danger, whereas women are fragile little flowers who can’t resist getting stone drunk and who are too frail to stand up under the least suggestion afterwards that “you’d be better able to identify any alleged attacker if you stayed a bit more sober.”

      1. It is a conundrum that the actions of a drunk driver are always considered his or her fault for getting drunk, but that suggesting that people shouldn’t get dunk so they can stay in control of their actions is s message we are only allowed to give vis-à-vis *driving* and nothing else. And yes, blame goes to the rapist. no question about that, by why is it OK to hold drinks respondible for their driving but not tell men and women they should stay sober to help them stay safer in general?

        1. That’s hardly a conundrum.
          Driving while drunk turns your car into a much more likely killing machine. It’s endangering others.

          Walking around drunk OTOH doesn’t, so the law (and public opinion) isn’t so fussed.

        1. Yes, that’s true. The Guardian editors chose the title of this piece, not me, for whatever that’s worth.

          1. » Adam Lee:
            The Guardian editors chose the title of this piece, not me, for whatever that’s worth.

            You know, I’m a journalist and having titles changed or completely new, often enough misleading ones, used by editors is something that happens all the time. I for one will tell my readers in the comments whenever a title is misleading or otherwise misrepresents what I wanted to say. You, OTOH, seem to be saying that you can see no reason to distance yourself from your piece’s title—would that be fair to say?

    12. I will choose just one example from your guardian article:

      “… Like many scientists who accomplished great things earlier in their careers, Richard Dawkins has succumbed to the delusion that he’s infallible on any topic he chooses to address, and in so doing, has wandered off the edge and plummeted into belligerent crankery. …”

      Adam Lee, how could you possibly know that Richard Dawkins believes to be infallible on any topic he chooses to adress? How have you gathered the knowledge to be able to make such a statement with conviction?

      You can not possibly know this.

      I put it to you that you may have written this for the effect that it creates rather than for its truth content.

      As a layperson of many fields, I look to read articles on science, religion and atheism, morality etc. from authors who have given the content of their words much thought. How else can I learn of something new to me that has value?

      You mustn’t be surprised if a great number of people will react to your article with disdain.

      As I believe you allude to in your article, it is no good to get set in one’s opinion to the point of not considering others’ criticism any more.

      1. Adam Lee, how could you possibly know that Richard Dawkins believes to be infallible on any topic he chooses to adress?

        I know. This seems to me to be a total smear. Once you get Dawkins to explain his position more thoroughly, he’s usually quick to qualify his own level of confidence and to admit when he’s uncertain about a field.

    13. » ebonmuse:
      You’re not the first critic who said I’m a terrible person for writing it, but who declined to say in any detail which parts of it are false.

      See, right there’s another lie: Jerry never said or even implied you were “a terrible person”. You just made that up. And you didn’t even bother to include a quote to the effect you were claiming, which should tell you that you don’t really care that much whether the statement is true, as long as you can use it for the effect you want it to have.

      And it’s interesting that you would waltz in here pretending (in very hedgy language that will allow you to claim that you never meant to say that) that none of your critics have pointed out actual lies in your piece, when that’s exactly what happened in one of the first Twitter exchanges you had with Miranda Hale (see the thread here).

      Another lie, as natalielaberlinoise has pointed out, is your assertion that “Richard Dawkins has succumbed to the delusion that he’s infallible on any topic he chooses to address”—about which too you don’t give a fig whether it’s actually true, as long as you can use it for the desired effect. For a writer, that is despicable behaviour. And the New Statesman are completely irresponsible for publishing your piece.

      1. And I suppose Adam Lee, who was just so disappointed that none of his critics would give any details that he might actually respond to, is now busily answering all those detailed criticisms. Because he is all about reasoned, fair discussion. Right?

    15. A clear problem with claiming that scrutinizing every word of Dawkins is akin to criticize religious leaders is that the dumb and outrageous comments of the latter is in abundant evidence.

      Besides, tw**ts suffers from the happenstance bad formulation and bad characterization. Never impute malice when there are simpler explanations.

      Nugent’s analysis of your article is a good response to your questions. Lots of problems there.

      I also stumbled on a falsehood of yours that Nugent didn’t cover:

      You (and othere here) claim Dawkins has “apologized” for a comment that now rests with the fishes. [Maybe a Wayback trawl can bring it back.]

      That claim links back to this article of Dawkins. But there is no apology there!

      What Dawkins says which may or may not address a comment about muslims is this:

      “There should be no rivalry in victimhood, and I’m sorry I once said something similar to American women complaining of harassment, inviting them to contemplate the suffering of Muslim women by comparison.”

      There are three obvious problems with claiming this as an apology:

      – No apology is issued.

      – Dawkins says that he is sorry to have invited an interpretation of a comment (“contemplating … by comparison”). The context, the whole article, makes it clear that it was an erroneous interpretation as “belittling”. That is, Dawkins is sorry for making an unclear comment.

      – The context makes it clear that Dawkins is yet again underwriting the core of his comment (however it was expressed): “But maybe you get the point? If we wish to insist (in the face of judicial practice everywhere) that all examples of a sexual crime are exactly equally bad, perhaps we need to look more carefully at exactly who is belittling what.”

      This isn’t an apology. It isn’t a not-pology. It is clarifying and verifying that the initial comment (whatever it was) stands.

      Also, if a comment is no longer to be found, should you really use it? Never mind that it may have passed its best-before date, no longer being relevant. But it is poor (non-existent) evidence.

    16. “I’m sure you know that some of the women in our community have been regular recipients of obscene harassment and violent threats for years. As I said in my article, Amy Davis Roth opened an art exhibit this week where she literally wallpapered a room with printouts of the disgusting messages that she and others have received.”

      I’m going to take specific issue with that, Adam. First, Amy Roth has a history of throwing around damaging accusations of “harassment” based on very little. She specifically did this to Harriet Hall for nothing more than wearing an anti-Skepchick t-shirt that offended her, something that was an early template for the current attacks on Dawkins and Harris. Hall was badgered for months by the Skepchick group and its supporters over this. Hall did end up making an apology just to make peace, but that remotely justify how she was treated, nor the vile attack on the right of not just Hall, but anybody to peacefully state their opinion.

      Second, while Roth’s exhibit does include much in the way of very real examples misogyny and harassing speech, she also mixes in quite a bit of simple criticism. Including at least one statement I made over Twitter in support of Harriet Hall, and hence, in opposition to Amy Roth:

      http://pic.twitter.com/FEoOl2i8W9

      I won’t mince words – I consider Amy Roth’s posting of this as an example of “harassment”, and CFI’s sponsorship of it, to amount to nothing less than active defamation. Ditto for the inclusion of Justin Vacula’s message. And, no, I’m not the litigious type, but I am going to call this for what it is.

      And Adam, if you’re reading this, do you stand by the characterization of my or Vacula’s message as “harassment”? If so, how do you justify that characterization? I’d really like to see you give an answer here, rather than, once again, throwing around crappy insinuations and expecting them to stick.

  35. Ebonmuse wrote:

    ‘Would Richard Dawkins’ statements have been less disagreeable if he were a young black woman rather than an older white man? No, of course not. But the fact that he is an older white man making these kinds of statements isn’t coincidental’

    And Ebonmuse also wrote:

    ‘Age, gender and skin color should be irrelevant to our ability to think rationally, but they’re not[…]Unconscious bias is an insidious force, one that affects even people who have no conscious intent of acting in prejudiced ways. Refusing to acknowledge this bias doesn’t make it not exist, it just means that it’ll have free rein to influence our decisions. And I think Richard Dawkins is unfortunately a classic example.’

    The words ‘thyself, ‘physician’ & ‘heal’ immediately spring to mind.

    1. Perhaps Lee has raised consciousness, like PZ Myers claims to have.

      Such a condition makes everything the possessor says more special (forget skepticism and rigor).

      Glen Davidson

      1. Wow, I had only skimmed the article previously, clearly being so much SJW propaganda with “evidence” that only an ideologue could credit, but I looked closer and, yes, the important thing is to be born again. Or in SJW parlance, to have a “raised consciousness”:

        On other occasions, Dawkins himself has emphasized the importance of awakening people to injustice and mistreatment they may have overlooked. But when it comes to feminism, he’s steadfastly refused to let his own consciousness be raised.

        Yes, Lee is accusing Dawkins of thinking he’s better than other people (even if true, I haven’t seen the evidence for it), when it’s clear that he’s assuming that those with the right beliefs are better and more wonderful than people wanting evidence for claims and accusations.

        It’s a cultic trait, this claim of simply being superior beings, rather than having to bother with mundane evidence, but then it’s nothing new, of course. Just as disingenuous as anything can be.

        Glen Davidson

  37. Can we have a new Roolz on abbreviations?

    I know LOL, but when someone says MRA and I google it, I get magnetic resonance angiography- which doesn’t make sense with the comment in this thread.

    It doesn’t need to be an enforced or punishable roolz, just one that suggests a reader is permitted to understand what’s being said.

    What’s wrong with typing out whole words? A tiny little effort would make life so much easier for those of us not ‘in’ with the lingo 🙂

  38. It’s sad if feminism and its truths that should be self-evident to any decent person, can be hijacked by such frustrated people desperately looking for an easy enemy.

    Actually, that has often been the problem with many liberal and leftist movements. Quite often the real enemy is beyond your reach and doesn’t much care about your feeble attacks. But you still have the urge to take it out on somebody, so you go and attack your ethical or intellectual allies, who do care.

    It might be just like people acting out their traumas on their loved ones — your boss lets you go, so you yell at your spouse. In social justice wars the scale is just different. Pentagon doesn’t care one bit, but you can always make the nice scientists of NASA feel bad. The Board of the Coal Plant dismisses you, but you can break the windows of your neighbor’s car. The Megachurch scam artists just laugh at your accusations, but you can still make the nice Christian girl in your office cry.

    And as many liberals/secularists/feminists realize, they can’t touch the complacency of Fox News, Rick Perry or the Koch brothers. So they attack people like Dawkins and Harris, who actually do give a damn about social justice, and the feelings of their fellow thinkers.

    I have seen many understandably frustrated feminists, female and male, who realize they can’t get their point across to the mullahs and wife beaters, so they keep barking at the amiable guy next door, who once made a mistake by telling sexist joke. It would fit the Dawkins-Harris-attacks perfectly. Otherwise, I can see little logic in it.

    1. Nearly there, but not quite. Historically speaking, there’s great prominence placed on the ‘dissenter’ factor. McCaine/Lieberman et al.
      From within you pretend to be more moderate, to cross over.
      This can be found in most socio-political movements.

        1. If anyone from within a group criticizes the group they’re a part of, they get attention. It’s a very common manipulation technique- mostly because competing groups are happy to put a spotlight on the individual in question.

          John McCain and Lieberman made that their modus-operandi for much of their careers. Manuel Valls is another good example. A left wing politician who says left wing economic policies don’t work.

          Or a gay person who opposes gay marriage, or a woman who opposes feminism, or an African American who denies the existence of racism.

  39. I’ve read almost all of the comments here, and the question that bothers me is do you have essentialize someone after vigorously disagreeing with their remarks??

    I vigorously disagreed with the remarks Richard D made in “Dear Muslimina” but I honestly don’t feel I really know RD well enough to conclude from this that he is an across-the-board misogynist. (I might tentatively conclude he lacks sensitivity in certain women’s issues, but that is not the same as malicious sexism.)

    People have layers.

    That said, “Daylight Atheism” has often been one of my favorite blogs. Lee has a good philosophical mind, and has one of the best critiques of Ayn Rand I have ever read. (He’s good on CS Lewis as well).

  40. Oolon is whining on Lee’s blog about Jerry ‘censoring’ him here.

    That’s Oolon of blockbot fame.

    My response is caught in moderation.

    Inset your own joke about irony.

    Don’t bother visiting, only 7 comments all day even after The Grauniad article.

    Oh, the humanity.

  41. Adam, here’s one of your direct lies. I have tweeted it at you so to say you haven’t been presented with any is…another lie. Anyway, here you are:

    (1) ‘ Dawkins argued that rape victims shouldn’t be considered trustworthy if they were drinking.’

    What he actually said was:

    (2) ‘If you want to be in a position to testify & jail a man, don’t get drunk.’

    The second is talking about someone who was *drunk*, not ‘who had been drinking’. It’s an observation about the fact of the matter in courts and not a gleeful endorsement. And it was in the context of a woman who says she was too drunk to remember what had happened.

    Your turning that into (1) is a barefaced, straight out lie.

    1. Those two quotes are equivalent.
      1) someone who has sex with a person who is too drunk to remember afterwards what happened is considered rape in both the US and UK.
      2) If Dawkins considers someone who was that drunk to be unable to provide testimony, then he considers him/her untrustworthy.
      3) While the victim might not remember the actual rape he/she will remember for instance waking up in a bed that’s not their own.
      4) Denying that someone can figure out that a rape has occurred from such evidence is similar to creationists saying “were you there?!?!” when denying the evidence for evolution.
      5) Denying that a rapist can be held accountable for a rape even if the victim was unable to remember that afterward is making rape apologies. (as in: maybe a rape has occurred, but we cannot give that consequences because the victim cannot remember anything)
      6) Using the shorthand ‘were drinking’ in stead of ‘drinking too much’ is all you can really point to. Until you consider the following Dawkins tweet:
      Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins · Sep 19
      Yes, I believe you. Why would I not? Unlike the hypothetical case of my tweets, you have clear & convincing memories.

      1. Your initial point is flat out wrong. You wrote:
        “1) someone who has sex with a person who is too drunk to remember afterwards what happened is considered rape in both the US and UK.”

        That is not necessarily the case. Some people (I am one of them) have real problems with recall without being heavily drunk and can end up with large memory holes after a night out, even though we were well able to make decisions for ourselves throughout the night.

        I ask you to place that fact alongside this, the CPS guidance for what constitutes consent with respect to rape:
        http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/consent/#a03

        Can i draw your attention specifically to the passage that reads:
        “However, where a complainant had voluntarily consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape.”

        So what is important is the cognitive capacity AT THE TIME, not the ability to recall events afterwards. In other words:
        a) You could be too drunk to consent but still recall events afterwards
        b) You could be capable of consenting but drunk enough to not recall events afterwards

        I apologise for not addressing your other points but I didn’t see much point moving past this one tbh.

      2. Those two quotes are not equivalent.

        Your premise 1 is incorrect. “someone who has sex with a person who is too drunk to remember afterwards what happened is considered rape in both the US and UK.”
        IANAL but I doubt if there’s a statute that says that. No doubt courts have concluded in specific cases that the victim was too drunk to give consent at the time, but that’s a matter of evidence.

        Given that, your point 3 (waking up in a strange bed) suggests sex may have occurred (unless the parties were too drunk!) but doesn’t point to rape unless there’s some additional evidence of non-consent.

        Your ‘logic’ presumes all sorts of things not in evidence.

        1. (I see noelplum got there before me and rather more cogently than I did. Needless to say I echo his comment).

      3. Stock movie scene; stock scene from real life: two strangers wake up in bed together with no recollection of how they got there. All they remember is being in a bar the night before.

        Up until now, what happens is this: they get dressed sheepishly and awkwardly. The one whose house it is not declines the half-hearted offer of breakfast and goes home. They both nurse their hangovers and vow not to drink so much anymore. No one blames anyone but himself.

        At what point exactly did we start believing that one of these people is guilty of a major felony that will alter the entire course of his life, and that the other is a victim of a horrendous violation that she will never get over?

        You’d better not put me on the jury, because I don’t care what the law says – I am not convicting this guy.

        2. When you’re out with a stranger, how exactly do you know when they’ve reached the point that they’re too intoxicated to actually consent to sex? Do you choose to err on the side of “I’m sure it’s okay,” or “how about we wait until you’re sober?”

          Just because something makes for a funny scene in a comedy doesn’t mean that it’s appropriate in real life.

          1. It’s not just a movie, it’s a pretty common real-life experience. People drink. Lots and lots of people drink a lot. And parenthetically, sex was probably one of the things they were in pursuit of when they went to the bar in the first place. Both of them.

            We’re in the process of changing the definition of rape such that now we’re going to assume that she was comatose and he carried her home and raped her, despite having no evidence that this is what happened. Some people would even like to presume that he drugged her or is somehow responsible for her being drunk (by pouring drinks down her throat?) But we don’t convict people of crimes based on the fact that something might have happened. If it plausibly might not have happened, then we can’t assume that it did.

            That is, in a court of law, at least for now; in a university tribunal I think he may be going to be presumed guilty and expelled.

            1. If neither person decides that they were raped then nothing will come of it. The issue that I’ve seen has revolved around the scenario of one person (typically a woman), who’s been drinking and someone else using that to take advantage of her because she’s got impaired judgment at the time.

              Why is it so important to you to defend the “right” of someone to have sex with intoxicated strangers, anyway? Why not just give them your number and tell them to call you when they haven’t been drinking? I’m not talking about someone you’re in a relationship with- if you and a friend or partner like getting drunk and having sex that’s fine. I’m talking about when you don’t know the person. If the person is a stranger to you, you don’t know whether they’re consenting or not. Alcohol impairs judgement and causes people to do things that they wouldn’t otherwise do. Is it really such a great thing to have sex with someone who’s so drunk that they won’t be able to remember it in a few hours? Why?

              1. I’d pose a somewhat similar question back to you. Why do you think women don’t have a right to have sex with anyone they want if they have been drinking?

                I’m bothered by the binary nature of your world view. It isn’t realistic. Alcohol impairs judgment, but it makes some difference how much you imbibe, no? At least recognize that the reason this problem is difficult is that the world is a place where gray areas abound.

              2. “Alcohol impairs judgment, but it makes some difference how much you imbibe, no?”

                Of course, but unless you’ve been with a person the whole time, how do you know how much they’ve had to drink? Especially giving that the original scenario I was responding to was one where the person had become so intoxicated that they didn’t remember the sequence of events that led to them winding up in the bed they woke up in.

                To put it scientifically, you have a choice of drawing the line where the question of “is the person too drunk to consent” might return false negatives (they are too drunk but it returns that they’re not) or false positives (they’re sober enough to consent but it returns as unable to). I personally think that for the sober person, it’s better to err on the side of assuming that your partner is too impaired to consent and therefore decline sex than to assume that they’re not too impaired. If a stranger is insulted that I decline to have sex with them because I’m unsure of how drunk they actually are at the time of the proposal, I’d just as soon not have sex with them to begin with.

              4. I’m not talking about what rights intoxicated people do or do not have. I’m talking about the responsibilities that sober people have when dealing with intoxicated people.

              5. Oh, is that what we’re talking about – whether it’s a great thing to drink and have sex with strangers?

                Or about why the guy didn’t just give her his number and tell her to call him when she’s sober? Well, gee, let me think – maybe because people don’t always behave the way I think they ought to behave?

                But I didn’t think we were talking about whether you or I approve of anyone’s behavior. I was talking about whether we can say a crime took place, a very serious crime with very serious consequences.

                And why is this all about what he did? Maybe he was drunker than she was. Maybe she was the aggressor. Maybe she was all over him. Maybe he was the one saying “no, no, no” and maybe she was the one who dragged him home. Maybe she tried her best to get him to have sex and he was too drunk to get it up, so they never even had sex. We don’t know.

                If she wakes up and remembers being raped, then – as Prof. Dawkins said – we have a different situation. But if she wakes up and has a “feeling” she was raped but doesn’t remember? No.

                Why is it so important to me to defend the “right” of someone to have sex with intoxicated strangers? Because, in general, it IS their right, not their “right”. A person has to be very drunk before he or she is too drunk to consent. And both parties have to consent, so if they’re equally drunk then they’re equally culpable.

              6. Don’t dance around the question. Do adult women have the right to have sex with whomever they like after drinking?

              7. Nobody has the right to sex. Adults have the right to seek partners for sex, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t circumstances where they’re unable to give consent.

              8. OK. You won’t answer the question. That answere the question, but not in a way that is respectful of women, IMO.

              9. I notice that you never bothered to address any of the points that I brought up, why should I answer yours?

              10. Besides, your question isn’t an accurate representation of the point I was attempting to make.

              11. Microraptor seems to be assuming the male is relatively sober and can make an accurate judgement of how much the female may have had to drink.

                Can I (as a male) use the fact that I was drunk and therefore my judgement was impaired, as an excuse? If not, why not?

            2. “why should I answer yours?”

              Because my question was the first in the specific exchange between you and me?

              My question is a logical one given the way you frame the matter. It gets to an important implication of your arguement.

              Your question “Is it really such a great thing to have sex with someone who’s so drunk that they won’t be able to remember it in a few hours?” is straw. I’m unaware of anyone making a case that corresponds to it and, as I said upstream, life has gray zones.

              Human sexuality is full of gray zones, even when both (or more) parties are stone cold sober. Your case implies only men go to bars looking for a hookup, in the lingo of young folk today. That’s, frankly, silly. And it is demeaning to women say that their sexuality is restricted in the way you recommend.

              Whose making the sexist case here?

  42. I love Jerry (and those who hangout in his “living room”) — and also Sam and Richard and PZ and Greta and Rebecca and Ayaan(and others). Though I likely wouldn’t call them all by first name if addressing in person, I think of them by first name because I have read or listened to them so much for years now. I don’t always agree with them all about everything, obviously, but they have all been a big help to me over the years as I’ve left religion and enjoy hanging out with like-minded humans. However, I don’t enjoy pZ’s “living room” so much now. I still stop by and hope to find useful nuggets to ponder and often do; but I don’t linger. Seems more and more what I find is cringe-worthy. Which is how I feel about this non-story he promoted about Sam Harris and his few words….and then the vitriol that keeps coming to any who disagree. It’s baffling.

    1. His followers are far worse.

      I don’t mean the other FTB headliners like Ophelia Benson, Greta Christina and the rest, who are obviously deeply troubled, but the real clock tower weirdos like Tony The Queer Shoop and Sally Strange.

      Much as I’ve grown to dislike Myers, those who post on his blog resemble the bubbling blob of hate that lives inside a Dalek.

      1. In what way are they “troubled”, exactly? Are you a psychologist, who can somehow magically make diagnoses from your computer? Or perhaps what you actually meant was “obviously and completely pissed off” in which case you’d be correct.

        Count me as one of them.

        1. Not necessarily referring to the names mentioned, but the anger and lack of civility expressed in many of the FTB posts is evidence of being troubled. If you insist on taking “troubled” as a psychiatric diagnosis, that’s your priviledge, I suppose. But to me, constant anger is a serious sign of being troubled.

          Having enjoyed and learned from PZ’s writing over the years, I truly think he and many of his regulars are very, very troubled. It reminds me of an abused dog, who now bites everybody. I actually sympathise with them in this sense, as the feeling is familiar to me too. I just choose to restrain the anger in the presence of other people.

            1. Fair point, and even if it wasn’t: Your site, your rules.

              So I accept the rebuke, but fear I may be liable to repeat the offense unwillingly, because I’m not sure where my crossing the line happened exactly. Also, since assessing and speculating about other people’s states of mind is kind of my daily business, that makes me all the more prone to make the same mistake again. My post above was a casual attempt to understand where this often seen vitriol is coming from, so it didn’t seem pejorative in my mind.

              The consensus here seems to be that many FTB posts (like many anti-Dawkins/Harris/Ali-lambasts) are quite often quite angry, written by apparently angry people. Is it wrong to say that? Following that thought, anger is surely not a desirable state of mind for anyone. Trying to avoid constant anger myself, I feel it’s mostly caused by some overwhelming problems we encounter, externally or internally.

              Perhaps ”troubled” really conveys something more medical and diagnostic than I took it to mean. To me it was an opinion, translating into something like ”being more angered by problems beyond one’s control than is advisable”. It is a situation I sympathize with myself, as I often become enraged by the injustice I see, and in my experience excessive rage is a bad thing all around, even if it’s only intellectual.

              I’m not arguing with you Jerry, but trying to find common ground and understand certain cultural differences. This is not the first time I’ve noticed that making a remark about someone’s state of mind is considered out of line in the USA (or in the US academia, or perhaps just in any world beyond my daily routine).

              Because I really don’t understand the often enraged criticism against e.g. Dawkins, to me it seems only natural to speculate where such rage is coming from, and the psychology behind it. I simply can’t believe a faux pas here and there can just by itself merit such backlash in a world where women are stoned to death and children buried alive.

  43. Okay , this looks like I’m replying to Grania. I’m not.

    I’ve seen a lot of attacks on Dawkins recently for ‘lacking empathy’ and having ‘meltdowns’ or calling him ‘Spock’ and it’s pretty clear what they are hinting at.

    1. Most likely, the paw of Ceiling Cat struck. It’s tantamount to déjà vu in the Matrix. 🙂

  44. I don’t think Adam Lee has lost anything. Maybe a small sliver of his credibility, but I’m hesitant to exaggerate the faults in that piece of his. The problem, so far as I can tell, is that this spat between factions is characterized by altogether too much exaggeration. All of us know that the best way to get to truth is through open debate in the marketplace of ideas, but now that atheism’s got some of its own party lines, too many are forgetting that our favorite method only works when we address our interlocutors fairly and in good faith (pardon the expression).

    That is why FTB is making so many “enemies”: some of the bloggers there are much too quick to exaggerate their critics’ positions in the worst possible light. To criticize their tactics or their arguments is tantamount to endorsing the slymepit/Amazing Atheist-types out there. This defensive reflex is the impetus for all of the “thought police” and “fake outrage” accusations befalling them, although I would also hasten to disagree with the use of such inflammatory criticisms – it’s just more of the same problem, you see.

    I think this post is guilty of exaggerating the degree to which Adam Lee has blundered in his latest article about Professor Dawkins, but of course that in no way means I agree with Lee’s piece. I don’t believe Dawkins’s twitter comments about the claims against Michael Shermer were necessary or positive, and I think Sam Harris’s remarks about gendered atheism were poorly chosen and insensitive, but I’m just as frustrated at Lee’s (and FTB’s) turn of blowing those comments out of proportion into the misogynistic apocalypse of public atheism.

    Call me a disciple of the least-mentioned Horseman, Dennett. I believe we can disagree strongly, giving no quarter when the other side is wrong, but also that we must be responsible to do so while characterizing the other side so charitably that they thank us for expressing their position that well.

    1. That is why FTB is making so many “enemies”: some of the bloggers there are much too quick to exaggerate their critics’ positions in the worst possible light. To criticize their tactics or their arguments is tantamount to endorsing the slymepit/Amazing Atheist-types out there

      Over on Nugent’s blog he has been attacked for ‘shilling for the Slymepit’. Nugent, for god’s sake!

      I’ve found more offensive figures in my breakfast cereal.

      It really is like FTB think everyone criticising them is part of some massive conspiracy orchestrated by a swivel-eyed figure in a bath chair or lizard people from the Earth’s core.

    2. “To criticize their tactics or their arguments is tantamount to endorsing the slymepit/Amazing Atheist-types out there. This defensive reflex is the impetus for all of the “thought police” and “fake outrage” accusations befalling them, although I would also hasten to disagree with the use of such inflammatory criticisms – it ’s just more of the same problem, you see.”

      If you are saying that the Myers tribe’s behaviour is a response to the ‘Slymepit/Amazing Atheist’ types then I think that you have the cart and horse wrongly ordered. The Slymepit arose as a response to the very behaviour that you are saying they caused.

  45. I don’t believe Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris hate women. I’m quite sure that no one else thinks that, either. You can say stupid sexist wrong things without actually hating women, just like you can say stupid racist wrong things without being a racist; and you can say stupid wrong things without actually being stupid.

    Both Dawkins and Harris said stupid wrong sexist things. And the sooner they both come down off their high horses and admit it, and apologize for it, the better.

    Until then, many women are going to continue to feel as though our concerns regarding sexism in the movement are being minimized and dismissed, and more and more of us are going to give up on doing things like commenting on blogs, going to atheist events, buying books, and participating in discussions online. We will abandon the movement- because who wants to go through the stress of constantly being told that you are imagining the sexism you encounter, or that you are just being “too sensitive”?

    I’ve been an active reader and a fairly active commentor on several different blogs over the years, leaving them one by one precisely because I got sick and tired of reading posts and the ensuing comments that dismiss the need for sexual harassment policies, denial of sexual harassment (by big name atheists as well as regular attendees) regardless of the women who come forward with personal stories to tell; bloggers and commentors who make fun of women for being “weak” or “too sensitive” because they get upset over being threatened with rape and death.

    It disgusts and appalls me that this isn’t being taken seriously by people who claim to be skeptics. I can only come to the conclusion that you either aren’t skeptics at all, or you are just so comfortable up there on your throne that you don’t want to come down and see how things really look and feel from this point of view.

    Sam Harris said atheism doesn’t have that “estrogen vibe” and Michael Shermer said atheism is “more of a guy thing”. Dawkins penned “Dear Muslima”; and claimed that if a woman doesn7t remember being raped, then she wasn’t.

    This is unacceptable.

    2. I agree with you, blondein.

      We are not bound to our talking heads, though. For what it’s worth, I’m happy to have company while I swashbuckle my way through bad ideas from any source – inside, outside, either side. The movement is more than its leaders. I hope you retain someplace comfortable to you.

      @Diane G: Libby Anne (Love Joy Feminism at Patheos – I haven’t figured out how to link yet, sorry) has written a response to Sam’s response that tries to explain why the charge of sexism is still relevant. I agree with blondein_tokyo that Sam isn’t sexist, let alone a misogynist, but Libby does make reasonable points.

      2. She has some points. OTOH I think she’s in denial that there are in fact biological and probably psychological differences between the sexes. Sexism is not the only reason there are more stay-at-home mothers than fathers. (Has she had any children, I wonder?)

        1. Yes, seems to me that in the SJW millieu at FTB, the only acceptable comment is: Women and men are exactly the same. [Which is why we have two different words. /snark]

    3. And who are you to demand an apology from people you don’t personally know? And to command that they should abide by your personal definition of “stupid wrong sexist things”? Talk about being on a high horse…

      1. 1) “Demand” is a word I didn’t and wouldn’t use. You using it so strongly here implies hostility, which I will be charitable about and ignore. So: who am I to ask for an apology? I’m an atheist woman who participates actively, vociferously, and sometimes even angrily in atheism. Harris owes me, and others like me, an apology because by perpetuating these stereotypes, he is either ignoring us or saying we don’t exist, and is marginalizing us. If we wants out continued support in the form of buying his books, paying to listen to his lectures, reading his blogs, and overall commenting positively on his work, then he really needs to issue that apology. And if he decides not to? Well, that’s his choice. I can take my business elsewhere.

        2) It’s not my personal private definition, and I think you know that. It’s commonly accepted that gender stereotyping IS sexist, and study after study has shown that repeating casual sexist gender stereotypes leads to those stereotypes becoming entrenched in people’s thinking. Don’t argue on that with me, then; argue with psychology.

        1. Except Harris is not perpetuating such stereotypes.
          Below in this thread is quoted his, extremely measured, extremely cautious, and tentative, explanation.

          If, in spite of that, you STILL think he is sexist, based on one off-the-cuff remark made in obvious shorthand, and contra everything else he has said, I can only conclude that the description given by Grania elsewhere applies to you: that you are poring over sentence fragments just to interpret them in that way which offends you (in much the same way that Harris’s explanation was jokingly modified below).

          On a similar note you have completely ignored tweets by Dawkins such as “rape is always bad” which again doesn’t help for you to appear unbiased.

        2. “Demand” is a word I didn’t and wouldn’t use.

          vs…

          “Harris owes me, and others like me, an apology…”

          I suppose that you didn’t literally use the word “demand”, but in common English usage, the second phrase is a demand, especially when followed by a threat (although rather feeble) to “take my business elsewhere”.

          1. That struck me as well. There is a, very slight, difference in meaning between the two words but it’s almost meaningless.

            Compare “I demand you pay me 100 bucks for the favor i did you” and “you owe me 100 bucks for the favor i did you”.

            If there is a difference I don’t really notice it.

    4. “Dawkins … claimed that if a woman doesn7t remember being raped, then she wasn’t.”

      No, he didn’t. He said nothing even close to that. You’re doing the same thing Adam Lee is doing, although in his case I suspect it’s intentional.

      1. Sorry for my shorthand. The tweets in full read,

        “Officer, it’s not my fault I was drunk driving. You see, somebody got me drunk.”

        Raping a drunk woman is appalling. So is jailing a man when the sole prosecution evidence is “I was too drunk to remember what happened.”

        “Exactly. If you want to drive, don’t get drunk. If you want to be in a position to testify & jail a man, don’t get drunk.”

        Then he backed up a bit, by saying “In my tweets I explicitly stated that I was considering the hypothetical case of a woman who testified that she COULDN’T REMEMBER.”

        That is what he said, and every one of those tweets shows his incredible ignorance of the experience of rape.

        I could go though each one and explain why they are problematic, but honestly? If you can’t see why they are a problem, then I really am not interested in having a dialog with you. You see, I’ve had these chats before, and frankly? The way they make me feel makes me want to stay away from ever commenting on any blog or participating in any discussions with men on the topic ever again. The sheer hostility, the denial, and the sexism of people who defend views like this just horrify me.

        1. » blondein_tokyo:
          That is what he said, and every one of those tweets shows his incredible ignorance of the experience of rape.

          On the contrary, what you write shows your incredible ignorance with respect to the fact that RD wasn’t talking about “the experience of rape” but about one particular circumstance. You may not like that other people don’t talk about a particular issue in the way and from the perspective that you would, but that is certainly nobody’s problem but yours.

        2. “In my tweets I explicitly stated that I was considering the hypothetical case of a woman who testified that she COULDN’T REMEMBER.”

          Ex hypothesi, there is no ‘experience of rape’ involved.

          I’m not much interested in your dialog either, thanks.

    5. ‘I don’t believe Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris hate women. I’m quite sure that no one else thinks that, either.’

      Have you spent any time at all over on FTB? Because I routinely see Dawkins and even Harris accused of misogyny there. Some examples from Pharyngula:

      ‘Ignoring the problem is what has allowed Sam Harris and Dawkins to pretend that they aren’t the condescending misogynists that they have only relatively recently revealed themselves to be.’
      – anteprepro

      ‘Dawkins is far worse than a troll. He’s an arrogant, sexist twit with a great deal of power and influence in the atheist community. When he speaks, many people listen. What he says, many people believe. He gives credence to the views of misogynists and anti-feminists everywhere, because he is one of them.’
      – Tony! The Queer Shoop

      ‘It is only more recently, now that he [Dawkins] has started opining on social justice issues such as the role of feminism, that the blinders have come off and we can see that Dawkins is, at heart, a misogynist social reactionary who is wedded to his male privilege and invested in maintaining the oppressive status quo.’
      – Gregory Greenwood

      ‘Even with the clumsy renaming of FTB, that just read to me like “women have been too uppity too long and it’s time they were put in their place.”

      Nothing about this surprises me; it just reinforces my scorn for this misogynist PoS. Everything he’s said for years seems to reinforce the “White men are Great Minds and Clear Thinkers and, golly, Human. Women? Children? Those ::shudder:: brown men? No, they really don’t count.’
      – 2kittehs

      This is from a quick scanning of two recent posts on just one blog.

      1. Why are you quoting Freethought Blogs to me? I’m not a Freethought blogger. My views are my own.

        If you want to know what I think, personally, on any of those quotes, I’ll be happy to tell you. Pick one. 🙂

        1. I was only responding to your comment that you don’t ‘believe that Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris hate women’ and that ‘no one else thinks that, either’. I accept that you don’t think he does, but quite a few people earnestly believe they both hate women and I gave some quotes to support that statement.

    6. blondein
      It certainly is the case that posts were written dismissive of the need for sexual harassment policies at various cons; I believe that’s why Thunderf00t was kicked off FTB. However I believe the skeptical movement’s has responded fairly well and most cons now have sexual harassment policies.

      1. It’s interesting that this has happened not just in the atheist /skeptic movement, but also at other cons – gaming, comics, sf and hacker. It was a bone of contention at Black Hat, the biggest hacker con, as having such a policy felt like an “establishment” thing to those who saw Black Hat as fundamentally anti-establishment.

        /@

      2. I don’t think the response could be categorized as “well” overall. Some people jumped straight on the bandwagon, yes. Others though, i.e., DJ Grothe, had to be dragged kicking and screaming, and some bloggers and speakers have never capitulated to their need. And the commentors, wow…I completely quit reading and responding to people on some blogs because the comments were so hostile and vitriolic. I think it is not unreasonable to say that all of these together make up “the atheist community”, and as such, it cannot be said that the response went “well”.

        I also think this issue is just an aside. There is a lot more to it than the sexual harassment policy uproar. There is the fact of sexual harassment in and of itself, as well as the threats, harassment, and sexist commentary, as well as this backlash over whether or not Harris, Dawkins et al should apologize.

        No, I can’t say it has gotten better since Elevatorgate….I really can’t.

    7. » blondein_tokyo:
      Sam Harris said atheism doesn’t have that “estrogen vibe” and Michael Shermer said atheism is “more of a guy thing”.

      That is untrue. What they actually did was not to say those are facts but to offer those things as possible explanations for an observed effect: the apparent under-representation of women in active atheism. That is in no was represented by what you said.

      Dawkins penned “Dear Muslima”; and claimed that if a woman doesn7t remember being raped, then she wasn’t.

      Also untrue. So blatantly untrue, in fact, that one has to conclude that you don’t really care about the truth of the matter. In other words, it’s a simple lie. If you had taken the trouble to quote Dawkins’s actual words, you might have felt the need to explain how your interpretation might somehow make sense. And you would have given your opinion the chance to fail the test of facts and argument that any rational opinion is required to take.

      1. Those are direct quotes, so yes- they did indeed say exactly that.

        What they meant might be up for debate, and both Shermer and Harris did indeed try to explain themselves in more detail, exactly as you said. However, those explanations still don’t save either of them. As I explained in another post (look at my reply to Diane G.) gender stereotyping is inherently sexist, and is problematic in the sense that it helps entrench sexism into our thinking. I gave several examples of this, and I mentioned on recent study. If Harris (and Shermer, and Dawkins, or anyone else) wants to claim to be concerned about feminist issues, then they shouldn’t perpetuate sexist gender stereotypes.

        As an example, do you think you as a man would be upset if you heard, say, Ophelia Benson or another prominent feminist blogger announce in a national interview,

        “There’s something about childcare that is to some degree intrinsically female and more attractive to women than to men,” “The variable we have to consider in matters of custody battles is this— men don’t obviously have this nurturing, coherence-building extra estrogen vibe that you would want by default if you wanted to give child custody to a man.”

        You might be able to argue that this is ust “possible explanations for an observed effect: the apparent less interest men have in childcare, and that they are by nature less nurturing than women.” but it would STILL be sexist.

        The analogy isn’t perfect, but I think you get the idea. I think it is reasonable to say that men dislike sexist gender stereotyping when it is aimed at them, so women can hardly be blamed for hating it when it is directed against them.

        1. “gender stereotyping is inherently sexist”

          That’s quite the claim.
          As was pointed out elsewhere, would you disagree with the statement “men are on average taller than women”?

          Because I don’t see the fundamental difference between that remark and saying that, in general and on the whole, men are more aggressive than women.

          So as to your example – I would recognize the shorthand, I would infer the caveats of averages, and then, yes, actually, that doesn’t sound that outrageous to me. It wouldn’t offend me the slightest.

          Put another way, you DO accept that testosterone and estrogen have a biological function? And you DO accept that men on average have higher levels of the former, women of the latter? Then why the reluctance to accept an inherent difference between men and women, following from the influence of these hormones?

        2. » blondein_tokyo:
          Those are direct quotes, so yes- they did indeed say exactly that.

          Do you even understand the difference between presenting something as a fact and presenting it only as a potential explanation? Because it doesn’t look like you do, seeing as you completely ignored what I said…

          As to your two examples:

          “There’s something about childcare that is to some degree intrinsically female and more attractive to women than to men”

          That might well be true. Why anybody would, or should, be upset about somebody else offering that as a potential explanation for, for example, a higher proportion of women working in education is something you’d have to explain—because it certainly isn’t obvious.

          “The variable we have to consider in matters of custody battles is this— men don’t obviously have this nurturing, coherence-building extra estrogen vibe that you would want by default if you wanted to give child custody to a man.”

          You seem not to understand the statistical point SH made with respect to active atheism potentially “lacking that extra estrogen vibe”: that is a statement about a general distribution, not about any individual case, as SH actually goes on to explain. In your child custody case, you’re doing exactly what SH says you cannot and should not do: from the general statement argue about an individual. So you got it exactly backwards.

          1. Quiet so. If Sam had been trying to explain why there are *no* women in “the” atheist movement, it might well have been more exceptionable.

            That there are active, vocal women atheists in the movement is in no doubt (Greta Christina, please note), and Sam was not saying otherwise.

            (And there are certainly proportionally more women in atheism than there were in the queues for the iPhone 6.)

            Elsewhere, I recall seeing figures showing that religiosity is higher amongst women, so immediately the pool of atheist women is smaller. (Not necessarily by the same margin, of course.) Of course, why religiosity is higher is not clear…

            “less risk-averse women are less likely to go to church and more risk averse men are more likely to attend church. So, it seems that many religious preferences are linked to risk – those who fear risk go to church, no matter what their gender may be; it just happens that women are not as interested in taking risks as men are” http://ow.ly/BLMUx

            A variety of reasons (including risk aversion) here: http://ow.ly/BLND1

            Risk aversion might be *a* factor behind the relatively lower numbers of women in “the” atheist movement, given the opprobrium that might be encountered. That seems a plausible hypothesis.

            (I wonder if the same is true of other kinds of activism — excepting feminism, very likely.)

            /@

      2. As for Dawkins words, see my comment above to Adrian Lopez:

        “Sorry for my shorthand. The tweets in full read,

        “Officer, it’s not my fault I was drunk driving. You see, somebody got me drunk.”

        Raping a drunk woman is appalling. So is jailing a man when the sole prosecution evidence is “I was too drunk to remember what happened.”

        “Exactly. If you want to drive, don’t get drunk. If you want to be in a position to testify & jail a man, don’t get drunk.”

        Then he backed up a bit, by saying “In my tweets I explicitly stated that I was considering the hypothetical case of a woman who testified that she COULDN’T REMEMBER.”

        That is what he said, and every one of those tweets shows his incredible ignorance of the experience of rape.

        I could go though each one and explain why they are problematic, but honestly? If you can’t see why they are a problem, then I really am not interested in having a dialog with you. You see, I’ve had these chats before, and frankly? The way they make me feel makes me want to stay away from ever commenting on any blog or participating in any discussions with men on the topic ever again. The sheer hostility, the denial, and the sexism of people who defend views like this just horrify me.”

        As Forrest Gump says, “That’s all I have to say about that.”

        1. » blondein_tokyo:
          If you can’t see why they are a problem, then I really am not interested in having a dialog with you.

          Sums up the authoritarian and sectarian attitude to discussion perfectly: ‘If you don’t already agree with me, I want nothing to do with you.’ By the way, that’s exactly the same thing Ophelia said when she started her battle against “sexist epithets”, booting anybody out who insisted on getting an actual answer to critical questions.

  46. I’m unhappy in general with the culture of attacking people based on specific comments. Why can’t people have AN ACTUAL CONVERSATION and ask others to clarify their statements if there is something that seems objectionable.

    I think the fact that all this discourse happens through text form on the Internet is a big problem. We would be saved from a lot of misunderstanding if we could simply have direct real-time feedback that happens constantly in real life conversations.

    What happens instead is that these people judge others based on interpreting something they said in a certain way that may not even reflect the intended meaning at all. It’s just so unproductive and it makes me sad and disappointed that smart people are doing this to each other.

    1. Indeed. It’s the first thing I thought in all these incidents – why don’t you ask for clarification? Do you go off half cocked like this on all the people you encounter in life? I wonder.

    2. And it’s also a crouching stance of expectiing to be offended and have a search pattern for such things, and then immediately reacting in print on the internet.

      I’m not sure what gratification this provides the practitioners; but it must be there, somewhere.

      People would be better off emulating Lincoln: When he was REALLY pissed off, he’d wirte the flaimng letter, then place it in a special desk drawer. After a week, he’d bring it out again and decide it it was worth sending it. Very few were ever sent.

      1. Wish more people were able to think that way today! I think much too often people (myself included) forget to ask themselves whether whatever they are about to say actually needs to be said. The worst thing of course is when someone is consciously trying to stir up a conflict because they get some kind of kick out of it. Your typical comments section on the Internet contains a lot of this kind of sociopathic behaviour. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were popular bloggers of this ilk out there as well.

        2. Before I post a review online, I read the exsiting ones and deicde: Do I have somerthing new to say here; and is it important enough to me to spend my time on it.

          Unless the answeres are “yes” I don’t post.

          I try to be as judicious in commenting (with less success).

          All that said, Sam Harris has asked his readers to (read his new book and then) post a review on Amazon, to balance the 1-star shill reviews. I will do so. I also do so with Dawkins’ books, etc., for the same reason. But I don;t post a one-liner, I post a real review.

  47. Why do people of stature use Twitter at all? It’s beyond me, especially since they can write blog posts, articles and books. And why does he talk about rape at all? What’s the point of bringing up touchy issues and then wondering why people are touchy about it? It seems like a pointless waste of energy.

    I miss the good ole’ days of a few years ago when public people kept their private thoughts private.

  48. You know, recently there’s been a lot of people here who have rushed to talk about how PZ has become so intolerant and requires that everyone on Phyrengula toe the party line. I’m not going to say that that’s incorrect, but I do want to point out how it’s starting to look rather similar here (only with less profanity).

    I’m not saying anything about how Professor Ceiling Cat should run his website- I’m familiar with the Roolz and make an effort to respect them, though of course I may interpret them in a way that isn’t how the person who’s actually running the website does.

    I just want to say that when we the commentators are talking about the behavior of people on a different website or blog, it’s a good idea to try making a conscious effort to make sure we’re not behaving in a similar manner to what’s being complained about. Not making any accusations, but it just looked like the danger might be there and I wanted to call attention to it.

    1. Agreed. I personally find it more interesting when I read comments from people who disagree with Jerry and with each other without resorting to profanity and ad hominem attacks. Two recent examples I can think of are the “historicity of Jesus” posts and the “objective/subjective morality” posts, in which I’ve often come away with a different perspective than what I started out with Even if it’s just a refinement of the starting position, I consider it a valuable experience.

      Honestly, though, I just wished it happened more often. For one thing, taking potshots at creationists and religionists who don’t know what they’re talking about is too easy and repetitive. (Totally not telling you what to post, Jerry! That’s entirely your business!). It’s probably necessary, though, if the articles add up.

      I don’t think this site is in danger of becoming a slugfest for hypersensitive critics and “ideologue” bigots any time soon – though I could be wrong in my prediction – but I do appreciate your cautionary check all the same. No harm in pausing and checking oneself over with the critical eye.

  49. I have no strong opinion of the topic under discussion; I see more than enough tribalism and vitriol on both sides, and a depressing absence of the Principle of Charity from anyone.

    However I am sad that this particular blog has sunk to this level of invective. After re-reading Da Roolz, I’m puzzled why (e.g.) Shatterface has contributed over 30 pearls of wisdom in a single thread, and why so many of the comments consist of nothing more than ad hominem attacks. I though #7 and #8 were intended to address such things.

    I suppose that this comment may be interpreted as telling Jerry how to run his blog (Roolz #5), but I’m simply expressing my personal regret at the relentless Slyme-pitting of the Internet.

    3. » Geoff Arnold:
      so many of the comments consist of nothing more than ad hominem attacks

      Why don’t you simply point them out? They have numbers and permalinks, so that shouldn’t be too hard, really. And then we can have a conversation about them. If you simply wave your hands, then—contrary to your stated intent—there’s really nothing to talk about.

  50. Richard Dawkins would have been outed long before this hacks name callig if these allegations had any hint of truth and by more reputable collegues and peers I would surggest. Only then would I take notice.

  51. I find it astonishing how difficult it appears to be for a bunch of adults who supposedly agree on all important matters anyway – here the importance of reason and evidence as well as the need to improve the lot of women both locally and globally – to discuss things without resorting to alternate accusations of misogyny, sexism, dishonesty, arrogance, wearing ideological blinkers, thought policing, lying, abuse, silencing and whatnot.

    Now I do not claim to know Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins personally, and nobody is immune to making the odd blunder, but they surely do not appear to be sexists. But then again, I cannot remember Adam Lee or PZ Myers writing that the former should be silenced or sent to a re-education camp either, so perhaps there is a bit of hyperbole at work in this comment thread? I am usually wary of the fallacy of the middle ground, but to the degree that there are two sides here they both seem to downright enjoy reading each other in the least charitable way possible.

          1. Yeah, believe it or not, sometimes one side is perfectly right, and sometimes two sides are both irrationally tribalistic, and sadly waving a comic or some famous person’s quote around is no substitute for actually figuring out which it is in any given case.

            In this case, I find it hard to accept that those who fill this thread with accusations of “bullying”, “thought policing”, “1984”, “witch hunts” are the totally rational tribe I should try to become a member of, at least until such time as Harris is thrown into a Gulag, or Dawkins is made to publicly renounce sexism in front of a Kangaroo court and then burnt at the stake.

            What actually happens is that some people write blog posts and articles claiming that the two said something sexist and/or clueless and are unable to admit it in a tone not noticeably different from how, say, creationists or apologists are regularly criticised around here. I disagree with most of those claims, and I wince when I see how e.g. the “I am not required to educate you” card is played on some FTBs to avoid having to justify one’s claims, but a witch hunt or thought policing it ain’t. It is public criticism full stop, even if one sees it as totally misguided.

            A major problem here seems to be that many people are happy with a nasty tone as long as it is only directed at “them”, e.g. creationists, but when it is directed at other atheists it suddenly sounds ugly. Which is why I appreciate the moderation on this site so much, where one is reminded to be polite even to presuppositional apologists when they show up in the comments.

  52. Jerry, the comments below and some others like them also describe you and your blog, and your banning of angryharry is just another example of your PZ-like arrogance.

    BrightUmbra
    Posted September 20, 2014 at 2:19 pm | Permalink
    Just wanted to add that I’ve tried commenting on his most recent post, and it seems he’s only allowing comments through moderation that agree with his position or praise him. So much for free and open exchange of ideas.

    Reply

    Mike
    Posted September 20, 2014 at 2:28 pm | Permalink
    It`s either censorship there or getting called all kinds of insults by his horde.

    Also Blog writers who don`t agree with the boss get kicked out (e.g. Thunderf00t). So others know this and everybody keeps in line.

    This really reminds me of communism. Started with best intentions (sharing, well being of everyone, working together) but after some time the power hungry take over and corrupt the system.

    1. Yes it`s exactly the same.

      That`s why we can still read your comment here and other comments, Jerry didn`t like, are also still on this site together with Jerry`s comment why he banned the users afterwards.

      But I guess that`s the logic they have over on the Foxnews Thought Blogs.

    2. angryharry didn’t get banned for simply disagreeing with the host, as is customary (or so I understand, I don’t go there myself) at PZM.

      angryharry got banned for posting something totally insane. I totally agree with that policy by Jerry – else this site would be quickly overrun by the crazies.

    3. Here’s the thing about free speech, everyone has a right to free speech. But that right does not extend to the right to post on someone else’s website, especially when you do it under an oh so very brave pseudonym or have crazy screeds to copy & paste.

      Any place on the internet that doesn’t try to moderate comments ends up like 4chan and conversation rapidly becomes impossible.

    4. “PZ like arrogance” – no, I just don’t see it, especially because many of us, myself included, have expressed contrary views to what Jerry has posted and those opinions have gotten through. If you aren’t familiar – google anything on Israel or Russia.

      And the implication that Ben has special status isn’t very accurate either as Jerry has told Ben to knock it off if things go too far.

      You might not agree with the way Jerry manages his site, but you can’t argue with the results; it’s one of the few places on the internet where you can actually have a civil discussion. People who I’ve shown this site to are always surprised at how we can argue with each other so politely.

    5. “This really reminds me of communism. Started with best intentions (sharing, well being of everyone, working together) but after some time the power hungry take over and corrupt the system.”

      Might it also reasonably remind one of a capitalist private corporate tyranny?

  53. It seems like a witch hunt to me, when I think about it, mostly because of the defensive posture of the accusers when it is suggested that their case is not strong.

    1. How can it be a witch hunt? The tweets are there in all their glory. There has been no selective quoting.

      The implication is that if you’ve been drinking and memory is not crystal clear than don’t bother to report it’s your own fault.
      Dawkins has said he believes this story

      http://www.newstatesman.com/voices/2014/09/i-was-raped-when-i-was-drunk-i-was-14-do-you-believe-me-richard-dawkins

      but somehow I doubt him. In a court with the boy rebelling his ‘version’ with a lawyer saying she was drunk and now regrets (a myth that came up so often on his website after his last rape faux pad I nearly vomited) and with recollections of only the worse of it not the fine detail. Dawkins would sit in judgement and his tweet that she was too drunk to be credible is all that would matter.

      But that girls story is more the nome than Dawkins would like too think! Including not telling a single soul.

        1. No Granis I’m pointing out the huge inconsistencies between his two tweets. The first one where he states a drunk woman’s testimony is not to be believed if she can’t remember. In which case I doubt she be able to make a rape complaint, and the second where he says he believes this victim despite the fact she states clearly she’d been drinking and her memories are hazy as she drifted in and out of consciousness!

          Which is it? Because in court that poor girl would have been torn to shreds by a lawyer for the simple fact she was drinking!

          And read her last paragraph about when exactly would he stop believing her.

  54. I’ve never had any interest in the “drama” within the atheist community. I’ve been an atheist since I left the church in 1998, so people like Dawkins or Myers or Coyne were no influence on me. I’ve been a feminist since long before any of this outrage began.

    Feminism as a closed group is a lot like atheism as a closed group, but feminism isn’t closed the way atheism is. Both originate from a position of subordination and psychological oppression. Both have had very intelligent people do real research into how people suffer under the domination of people who don’t respect them. And both groups have people who claim to be a part of that group but possess no knowledge whatsoever about either the nature of the suffering nor how to deal with it maturely to improve your life and the lives of others.

    When I became a feminist, it was through study rather than social media and it was apparent that researched feminism, because it acknowledged the suffering caused by discrimination, supported all other groups who were discriminated against — except atheism. Atheists were not considered to be discriminated against because such an admission would undermine religious feminists, so it was characterized as a condition of choice, unlike for example homosexuality.

    At the same time the skeptic community also rejected atheism. It is not unusual for members of one group to want to reject people from other groups. I am quite happy that atheists have made strides to be accepted by skeptics and feminists alike. It would be wholly unproductive for atheists to undermine these gains by criticizing atheists who support feminism.

    There are asshole feminists who hate men and certainly have as much pain behind those feelings as atheists have pain inflicted by Christians or Muslims who sometimes become assholes themselves. Those people aren’t the movement, they just wear the labels. PZ Myers and Adam Lee are not on the side of those angry feminists any more than they are on the side of the angry atheists. They are on the opposite side of the phony Men’s Rights Advocacy movement (MRA’s) which is in itself little more than a rapist apologist club. The real men’s liberation movement is actually emergent from feminism itself, from the notion of gender equality, not a reaction to it. There are suckers in the MRA movement who foolishly believe social progress will come from their ill-informed reactionary movement. Those people are the same as atheists who think Thunderf00t or Dawkins understand feminism.

    They and their followers will still be atheists, just as angry man-haters will still be feminists, but the progress of atheism and feminism can only be made together — it would be impossible to advance either one or the other alone — so we need to foster respect for all other anti-discrimination movements in the atheist movement, because like it or not they are already under the umbrella of feminism. Atheism is therefore indebted to feminism and must show respect to the results feminism earned by itself long before atheism reared itself in the last decade and a half.

    I think it’s ironic that some people think we are trying to muzzle Dawkins and Thunderf00t while feminists can’t even try to muzzle their angries who are far more numerous and angry than atheists. If you think you can fight against racism or anti-homosexuality by attacking feminists, you might believe you can fight theism while attacking feminists, but you’d be wrong.

  55. This whole thing has proven to be rather upsetting. But as this batch of SJWs in the skeptic community yell accusations of sexism over mostly nothing (although I do think they have also called out real misogyny as well), I think it is already becoming more and more obvious to many that their accusations over certain incidents is mostly bullshit. Very few can maintain a sense of outrage over something with so little meat on it.
    Then a new generation of skeptics will come around (they do that every few years), and they will see this batch of SJW as having always been a bunch of over-reactive cranks.

  56. Dr. Coyne, as a long-time reader, I hold you in high esteem on many topics, but not on this. Regarding the kind of leadership the atheist community needs, I’m more for Adam Lee’s point of view.

    Mr. Lee is on Patheos, like many other blogs good and bad (and many linked by RDF as “secular stars”). Lee has also avoided some of the inflammatory language of other blogs, and reads closely the texts he disagrees with (e.g. his many posts on _Atlas Shrugged_, which remind me of your diligence on religious texts). I think you dismiss him too quickly.

    I agree that Nugent’s been slammed too hard… but don’t see Lee as part of that. It’s reasonable for Lee to comment on a British atheist in a British newspaper, even if the initial squabble’s in the States.

    In my opinion, Richard Dawkins has demeaned himself with his comments on sexual assault of drunken women, a topic not well-suited to nuanced discussion via Twitter, especially when the American skeptics/atheists community is having bitter conflict over allegations against Michael Shermer. Serious allegations, for all that only one person accusing him of nonconsensual sex has agreed to be named by a reporter. (And yes, I’ve gone over Dawkins’s Twitter feed, which is a mess for one trying to discern a defensible coherent stand on consent and evidence.)

    When Dawkins tweets like that, or Harris chalks fewer women in atheism to gender-based differences in thinking, it’s reasonable to call that sexist. Whether they deserve noun-labeling as sexists is more a matter of opinion or hyperbole.

    But I don’t think much of their defenses so far.

    1. “It’s reasonable for Lee to comment on a British atheist in a British newspaper”

      That’s a very… interesting way of describing the situation. Except of course that’s not really what is happening here, is it?

      By all reasonable expectations, the Grauniad should be fully supportive of Dawkins: left-leaning, for social equality, not religious, anti-racism/sexism/homophobia, etc.

      But instead, they are running a clickbait campaign against him with weekly articles attacking him from every imaginable (and unimaginable) angle, recruiting (paid) volunteers from anywhere they can find to say “I am an atheist, BUT… ”

      Your representation of this is akin to saying “it’s reasonable for citizens of the USA to ask questions about the place of birth of their president” or “it’s reasonable for Putin to ask for the rights of Russian citizens of the eastern Ukraine to be protected”.