The trouble began when Bill Maher recieved the Richard Dawkins award awhile back, he got it for getting atheism some publicity via his movie Religulous. Richard Dawkins doesn't have anything to do with the award, it is just named after him. The Atheist Alliance hands em out. Anyway, people were mad because of some of his anti medicine comments from before that were of a milder variety. I agree that he had some supremely stupid shit to say, and that is is getting worse and worse as time goes on.
However, Bill Maher has a fucking disgusting history of saying outright misogynist shit in the media and has been a lot less subtle about it. It has been going on forever. How has no one managed to discuss this? There is a gold mine of woman hating commentary to dig through to show how completely irrational the man is. Some of the more famous ones include:
"I mean next thing, women will be wanting to give birth in the waterfall at the mall! Look, there's no principle at work here, other than being too lazy to either plan ahead or cover up. It's not fighting for a right, it's fighting for the spotlight, which you surely will get when you go all Janet Jackson on everyone (makes flashing motion of opening shirt) and get to drink in the oohs and ahhs from the other customers because you made a baby! Something a dog can do. Only in America do women think they deserve a medal for having a kid. In China women give birth on their lunch hour and that afternoon they're back on line painting lead onto Barbie dolls. But this isn't really about women taking their breasts out in public - as much as I'd like them to. It's about how petty and parochial our causes have become, and how activism has become narcissism."
"New rule: stop acting surprised someone choked Tila Tequila! The surprise is that someone hasn't choked this bitch sooner."
"Maher: But look at Hillary Clinton. Because the first thing a woman does, of course, is cry. [Affecting a dramatic, teary voice] I just want to be happy. Why can't you just love me?"
This comes with a bonus piece of misogyny from christopher hitchens:
Christopher Hitchens: And then if you say "whine, whine, whine" they say that's sexist.
There was so much more to choose from, this was just the tip of the iceberg. Dude constantly talks like women like they are a different species, one worthy of contempt outside of how fuckable they are. There is plenty of racism from him as well. This isn't rational, this isn't being skeptical, but there was not any outrage from skeptics about this at all. Why should skepticism be aimed only at the supernatural? Why is there such a resistance in skeptics groups to think about social issues critically?
I am pretty certain I have an answer for that; there isn't much incentive to critically think about things that benefit the group in question. The inclusion of Christopher Hitchens in the last Bill Maher transcript is very relevant, Hitchens enjoys a lot of popularity in skeptics groups despite his outright sexism. His column on why women aren't funny in vanity fair, or when he referred to Wanda Sykes as "the black dyke" in a very public way, or when he just can't help but call hillary clinton bitchy doesn't spark outrage or protest. I remember when the black dyke incident originally happened and a thread cropped up at JREF, the majority of the responses were somewhere between "boys will be boys" and "drunks will be drunks", even though the man has a long history of the same kind of shit so it clearly was not a one time slip of judgment. Should't being completely sexist be grounds for calling someones skeptical cred into question? Or is it more likely that when people say they are 'skeptics' they are referring to critical thought aimed toward a very specific set of beliefs rather than the world in general? It seems a lot more likely to be the former than the latter. I can't find an explanation for the behavior otherwise. PZ meyers still gives hitchens oriented material traffic via Pharyngula, which saddens me because he usually does such a good job of posting about feminism from time to time. Ditto that for richard dawkins; he seems to have an amazing amount of respect for women and feminists in particular (naming their achievements with changing the way people use language as something to aspire to). He also seems to be okay with endorsing Hitchens in general.
Including him without criticism alienates and discourages women and people of color from joining up. I know I feel pretty damn alone when people I agree passionately with about things like science and critical thinking continue to dismiss feminism. The pressure that is being put on Maher recently for the medical science issues actually fucking existing when no one seemed to really even speak up about the sexism is really really disappointing. Also, some guys using 'science' as a reason to oppress women without someone speaking up is that a lot of people who (rightly) have some sense of self interest may start to think that science is a crock of shit based on those explanations. Everyone is shooting themselves in the foot on this one.
When someone does try to share the perspective of being a person of color or a woman in skeptic communities the majority of people in the groups I have encountered dismiss their viewpoint on extremely typical grounds. This article from richarddawkins.net has some really disturbing comments that illustrate exactly what I am getting at; an automatic opposition to the voices of people of color and women. Disagreeing isn't the problem here, it is the outright dismissal and unwillingness to ask questions in order to understand the point of view she puts forward here. Having an actual discussion, or an actual willingness to understand her and then disagreeing would be a very different picture.
I am going to start emailing PZ meyers and Richard Dawkins directly about this to see if perhaps they will change their minds. Probably some of the more feministy bloggers at scienceblogs as well. It is worth a shot!
I clicked on a link from Pharyngula and I'm glad I did! Considering what a generally well educated lot atheists are, they really don't seem to know anything about feminism. Problems to do with sexism and racism are kind of seen as other people's (i.e. non- atheists)problems, so it is not really addressed in the atheist community. I'm now going to read your archives and recommend this blog to everyone I know.
ReplyDeleteI think there's a natural opposition to the sort of race- and sex-based pseudo-intellectual claptrap that comes out of the mouths of some folks. There's plenty of real bigotry in the world that needs to be addressed, without blaming white males for being white males. I find much of that sort of feminist/racial talk to be sort of "wrong in the opposite direction" rather than a corrective measure... my perspective might be a bit skewed, on account of my having spent the last three weeks screaming against intellectual "feminism" at the top of my lungs. Of course, it isn't women to blame... it is "intellectualism as masturbation." Me and everyone reading this could sit down in a room and hammer out a million points of agreement and come out of the other side better off. Let a couple of "academics" or "philosophers" at it... *shudder*... and what you get is something that is almost as alienating as the bigotry it is designed to address.
ReplyDeleteOh, and Bill Maher and Christopher Hitchens are both intellectual lightweights who are only taken seriously because we've got no one better who is already established in the media. The question isn't "why aren't they shunned for their nastiness" but rather "why are they taken seriously at all?"
Thanks for posting the link to the comments on richarddawkins.net. Reading one page of comments really drove home the message of your article.
ReplyDeleteReally good points here. Atheists as a whole are more skeptical, and rational, than the general population, and certainly don't have the pre-programmed, divinely inspired misogyny that many religious folks do -- but atheism doesn't automatically equal opened mindedness and right mindedness about all things. I'd love to hear more from skeptical feminists -- and not hear them automatically charged as "Feminazis" (or the pseudo-enlightened equivalent) when they do.
ReplyDeleteGreat post; really good food for thought.
The sort of comments you refer to might just barely be acceptable as joking between friends, and it's demoralising to realise they're acceptable to a lot of white, male atheists as ways to address strangers who are simply deserving of respect and a fair hearing. I also feel a bit embarrassed that I haven't called out my fellow white guys on this stuff often enough.
ReplyDeleteBill Maher is an ideological comedian. Many times he tries to shock people into laughter with ridiculous comments on his show. I'm not defending it, I'm just pointing out that the disgusting language used in the speech was probably a sad stupid attempt at humor and not some reflection on maher's impression of feminism. I'm also not sure if that means anyone is supposed to be less offended by the comments. I would hope every skeptical thinker/atheist would strive for a meritocracy in their community but I'm not deluded enough to think that we have necessarily achieved it simply by hoping for one. Bottom Line: The fact that the skeptical community has strong pro-feminism members to point out these issues to those of us with a Y chromosome is an important and very healthy thing to have and I would imagine that the viewpoint of the author is shared by atheists more than it isn't.
ReplyDeleteI am in agreement with you, Kim. On the whole I think we atheists are a rather skeptical and rational bunch.
ReplyDeleteWith that said, I think like with any grouping of people there are going to be those that have a variety of reasons and circumstances which have lead them towards atheism (never neglecting those who were raised skeptical/atheist).So what of the psychological idea of compartmentalization? Perhaps these people (Hitchens, Maher, etc) have domains of rationality with regards to metaphysical nonsense and god belief but lack that same skepticism and rationality in the domain of race or sexual equality? Just an idea.
Just as an aside note: both Hitchens and Harris have tend to have horribly pro-imperialist stances when it comes to the U.S. wars on Iraq and Afghanistan and I hold very much the exact opposite views upon those stances (ie anti-imperialist / anti-war / etc). Perhaps this is another area of different domains getting different levels of self-inquiry?
You're right on the money on this. Many skeprtics (and I'm not excluding myself here), are quick to call others to the carpet for pseudoscientific comments, but could do a MUCH better job of calling out sexism when we see it.
ReplyDeleteI'll echo valdemar's thoughts, too: Though I've heard Maher make both sexist and pseudoscienitfic comments before, and I've cringed at both, I've only written blog posts about the latter. At the very least, I should expect better of myself and do a better job of calling these kinds of comments to the carpet.
I think you're right on. I grew up as a Mormon and saw firsthand religion's oppression of women. I attributed that to believing God is male and therefore males are more God-like and are divinely appointed to be in charge. Unfortunately, patriarchy is so ingrained in our culture that simply taking the almost-always-male God out of the picture doesn't solve the problem. I've been disappointed with the lack of visibility women have in the skeptics community. I'd like to see women doing more. We stand to gain tremendously from promoting rational thought.
ReplyDeleteYou may be interested in the Skeptically Speaking episode on this topic - and what I've written in the past about women and skepticism. The issue has been discussed, although there are clearly ongoing problems.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.skepticallyspeaking.com/2009/08/01/gender-and-skepticism (the radio show episode) and my site demonstrating a number of women skeptics who are working - http://is.gd/4Z9pN
Great post. And following the links to the original article and its comments is worth it. Those comments are a perfect example of how when you call out (often subtle) bigotry, you get slapped down with (1) "no, its YOU being racist/sexist against white men", (2)"you're just imagining it, stop victimising yourself", or, my favourite, (3) "women/other races do the same thing" (you know, as if that makes it ok).
ReplyDeleteBy the way - the following women are presenting with PZ Myers on the same stage at the Australian Atheist Global convention in March, 2010. Taslima Nasrin, Catherine Deveny, Sue-Ann Post, Kylie Sturgess, Lyn Allison, Leslie Cannold, Maggie Millar, Jano Caro, Tanya Levin and myself, Kylie Sturgess.
ReplyDeleteGood points, good post. The worst thing anyone can do is be silent or dismissive of this sort of thing, and I applaud you for calling people out on this one.
ReplyDeleteMaher is a patriarchal, egotistical dude who talks condescendingly about women while professing to be liberal. He's a poser.
ReplyDeleteWow, all nice comments, and my emails actually made a difference. What an awesome day. Thanks everyone!
ReplyDeleteMy initial response to this post was incredulity. How can one talk about an "opposition to the voices of women and people of color" when one considers the way Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens wholeheartedly endorsed Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or the regular recognition Richard Dawkins gives to Eugenie Scott? When it comes to the voices I regularly listen, many of them are women: Rebecca of the SGU, Swoopy of skepticality and the many women (including Kylie Sturgess who has already posted) on the skeptic zone. Altough I would freely agree that there is a gender imbalance in the skeptical community I see online, at conventions and in local meet up groups, I see much more aggressive feminism in that community than in the mainstream world.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, it certainly is true that people I know in the skeptical community are far more tolerant of misogynistic humor than of psueodscientific beliefs. While I do think that some peeople can't take a joke, I also realize that some jokes help reinforce unhealthy social norms.
Well reasoned post.
"Disturbing comments"? All I saw was rejection of the PoMo lit crit shit which is the prevailing form of insanity in hyphenated-studies wackademia. The rejection was more or less even-handed, by both men and women.
ReplyDeleteIt appears that somebody does not yet understand that Post-Modernism jumped the shark years ago. (If you did not get the joke, continue here and read until PoMo phraseology makes you properly nauseous.)
A truly excellent article!
ReplyDeleteThank you for articulating what I have been struggling to say.
Disturbing comments? That these people care nothing for race? Isn't that the way it is supposed to be? "Judged not by the color of our skin" and all that? That's exactly what they are doing. You are the one exempting the article from criticism by pulling the race card. While you try to coddle someone because of their skin color (or gender), the commenters judged the article on its merits (which were few).
ReplyDeleteSecondly, Maher is a successful comedian. Which means that you have to take what he says with a grain of salt, and that his success reflects more on his audience than on him. Also, who wouldn't want to choke Tila Tequila, that annoying gremlin?
Finally, most of these example are out of context, or simply bad word choice when calling out select women on some bullshit. In the same sentence about Clinton, Hitchens praised Bhutto. And Hitchens didn't say that women weren't funny. He wrote a detailed and cogent article about the mechanisms for the development of humor and how it relates to sex. If you had actually read it instead of automatically opposing it based on the by-line, you could read his somewhat-convincing arguments.
I love Hitchens and I can't stand Maher, but that's neither here nor there.
ReplyDeleteYour post expresses frustration with skeptics from a feminist's perspective. But skeptics have let down more than just feminists with their adoption of Bill Maher as a "person of reason." They've let down anybody who legitimately embraces critical thinking.
Maher has taken intellectual shortcuts and been rewarded with cheap applause for years now. I think this is because skeptics, while all too willing to attack such idiot cartoon characters as Sylvia Browne and Ben Stein, are reluctant to stick their claws into the likes of Maher.
I gather this is because most skeptics are liberal and thus greatly amused when Maher goes into one of his anti-tea party diatribes. As such, they are reluctant to speak ill of the man because his politics have given them such a chubby.
This is deplorable. It constitutes intellectual laziness at best and, at worst, intellectual cowardice.
EVERYONE should be held to the same harsh scrutiny; NO free passes. Why is that so difficult for even the brightest skeptics to understand?
Improbable Joe, davidcrash7:
ReplyDeleteYour arguments sound a lot like the arguments of reverse racism used by white racists. Hopefully this is a coincidence. And who are the arguments of feminists "alienating"? The males who define social norms.
It's almost impossible for a man to step outside the social privilege of maleness. Maybe you should try it some more before dismissing feminist arguments.
I don't think most people notice the misogyny as much as they notice that bad science.
ReplyDeleteTwo reasons.
1. Most of us are keeping our radar trimmed for spotting bad science.
2. The Genus perspective is something we've been struggling with for a long time. And we keep struggling with it. Men and women alike make different distinctions and act differently depending on another person being male or female. It's not something we think about at all.
I'm currently reading about this in UV, where even the scientists that research the phenomena catch themselves with treating boys and girls distinctively different. Without ever thinking about it at the time of doing it.
I'm not excusing Maher or Hitchens. I don't agree with either of them on with much other than their stance on religion. But I also don't think they are themselves aware of that they are treating women and men differently.
I can bet that everyone in this comment thread do it too, but you are unlikely aware of it. And if you are, you are probably not aware of to what degree you do it. I've been looking at myself a lot the last few months and how I act. And what I find is that I look differently on boys and girls. I've found that I simply got more patience for the girls than for the boys.
This is obviously something I try and work on, to diminish and to as an great extent I can, eradicate any different treatment of the children based on gender. But I doubt I'll ever get the entire way there.
Anyway, I think it's great that this has been brought out in the open and up for discussion. I think only good can come from it. But I hope everyone who take part in the discussion keep in mind that this is to a great extent something we're not even aware of that we are doing.
Oh engineer poet, you silly silly goose. Have you heard of anti suffragists? Some of them were women, too. Having a woman say something sexist doesn't make it not sexist, it just makes it extra sad.
ReplyDeleteDavidcrash7- Oh, silly me, I must have forgotten to examine the world from the perspective you have described; you know, the dominant one that is represented everywhere and condescendingly explained to me over and over again by dudes such as yourself. How fortunate I am, that you are here to mansplain it to me!
Please.
You haven't tried to understand what was said, at all, which was the main criticism of the comments there.
I'm glad that this issue is being discussed more and more of late. On the Atheist Experience podcast there were back to back calls this week, one from a black woman atheist and one from a gay black male atheist (two trifectas of discrimation targets). The ultimate of course would be a black lesbian atheist.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do enjoy reading/watching people like Phil Plait and James Randi and Richard Dawkins they aren't really challenging me in the way that someone from a *really* different perspective does.
As a middle aged middle class straight white male (I am the model example of the problem! woohoo!) I find it far more interesting and educational to encounter the views of women, non-whites, and gay people. I learn far more that way.
Oh, also, I am inventing a new card. The "anyone who complains about racism or sexism is actually racist or sexist" card. its what you play against the race card.
ReplyDeletei hate the 'youre just playing the ___" card talk. calling it a card it makes it seem like some petty competition where participants are attempting to win instead of an actual discussion where people are attempting to understand each other.
I mostly agree with everything you said. Wholeheartedly. But there's a couple points I have to pick on.
ReplyDelete"Should't being completely sexist be grounds for calling someones skeptical cred into question?"
No. It absolutely should not. For the same reason that we don't question Newton's cred as a mathematician despite his obsession for decades about bible-code nonsense. Even great people and great minds can have great faults in other areas. We can criticize them for their shortcomings to be sure, but we absolutely should not be calling into question their other faculties because of unrelated faults.
"...when he just can't help but call hillary clinton bitchy."
If you read your own link there, it's pretty easy to see Hitchens is not criticizing women at all. He's criticizing Hillary Clinton specifically, because she exhibited properties of a sore loser. When he says "But she can't help herself, can she? She just can't." He's saying -she personally- can't help herself because she is who she is, he's not at all saying she can't help herself because she's a woman. That's what the whole business with Bhutto was about.
Hitchens is a tricky one because he loves to criticize so much. He's not afraid to offend those who are inclined to take offence. The Vanity Fair article is a great example. He goes out of his way to point out that his claim is not that women can't be great comedians, but that sexual selection has gone and created a bit of a statistical difference on how humour is approached by men and women, and he provides a source of evidence to back up the claim.
His claim in that article is no different than the claim that "Men tend to be faster sprinters than women." Some people might not like that, and the world would probably be better if the sexes were more equal in terms of physical speed and strength, but that doesn't change reality. Evolution did what evolution did and statistics bear the claim out pretty darn well.
The first comment you cite I think is fairly judged misogynistic, and honestly I'm quite surprised he wasn't called out on to the carpet for it earlier. I don't think the point he was trying to make is necessarily sexist though, having children doesn't give any woman a license to be a jerk, but he took an incredibly ugly and sexist route to get there, and that's a big problem.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the second comment goes, I don't really see how that's sexist at all. It was directed at one person, not all women in general, and sorry, calling a particular woman a "bitch" is no more sexist than calling a man a "bastard," it is a character judgement on an individual.
The third comment started off okay (again it was a character judgement on Hillary Clinton, for the first sentence anyway), but then it devolved into something ugly. He should have made fun of Hillary for purposely crying in order to appeal to the emotion of voters, but instead lumps her in with all women and what they "do."
As a recently deconverted atheist I never really knew much about Bill Maher until this whole thing with his stance on vaccinations. I can see the point in complaining that his sexist comments went "unnoticed," but I personally didn't know about them, and that's also a problem. I'm glad you've written this article and that PZ Myers has linked to it. Awareness about this stuff really needs to be raised. The skeptical movement has a hard enough time attracting women and minorities without the Atheist Alliance handing out awards to thin, liberal versions of Rush Limbaugh.
"Shouldn't being completely sexist be grounds for calling someone's skeptical cred into question?"
ReplyDelete"No. It absolutely should not."
I disgree completely.
First of all, the question wasn't "Should being completely sexist be grounds to dismiss someone's otherwise good ideas completely?" If it were, I would agree with your answer. After all, someone claiming that 2 +2 = 4 will always be right, even if they happen to be the biggest, most obvious sexist in the world.
The question posed here is whether skeptical cred should be "called into question" in cases of sexism, and it absolutely should be called into question. The sexist person's credibility, logic, honesty, etc, should be examined.
While it's true that being sexist doesn't neccesarily preclude someone from being a skeptic, part of being a skeptic is being logical. Sexism is completely illogical, and therefore calls into question any status or claim relating to logic.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying exactly. Bill Maher has been rightly criticized for his anti-science views by many people in the skeptic movement to include some atheists. Within this criticism was the re-assertion of the fact that atheism and skepticism are not synonymous.
ReplyDeleteI think your post clearly demonstrates the fact that you can be an atheist without being a science based skeptic. In fact it's not necessary at all. Neither is it a requirement to subscribe to certain ideological viewpoints or adherence to progressive politics. You can also be a skeptic without being a feminist or being a liberal with respect to race. If the jokes and monologues you referenced were demonstrably untrue by means of scientific evidence then you would have a point, but they are simply distasteful and probably do turn off people but I think this further highlights the point that atheism, specifically, doesn't require any belief at all. What it does require is a lack of belief in a god. Atheism doesn’t follow any political viewpoint at all, and many times I think the believing public, as well as some atheists forget this.
Science based skepticism is a whole different story, and just because a sizable number of us adherents are progressive in our outlook doesn't necessarily mean that all skeptics must follow suit. At the same time I agree that you should stand by your convictions and speak out against things you find to be objectionable. I just think your post doesn't clearly layout what you are upset about. Is it that the skeptic movement has anointed a dirt bag in your view? If so, then I agree. I think that skeptical organizations that associate themselves with Bill Maher do so at their peril. But, if your point is that the skeptic movement as a whole should be accepting of the feminist ideal then I have to disagree. Personally, I am, but I think that the feminist ideal by nature is a subjective stance that one must take independent of some evidence based necessity just as one must freely decide that all races are equal. I know there is scientific evidence that can be used in argument, but I don’t believe that it is decisive at the present, because if it was then our society would probably look very different. I believe your gripes are political in nature and aren’t necessary for one to be viewed as a skeptic.
I do agree there is much work to be done to bring in others than white males into the skeptic/atheist worldview. However, this must be done first and foremost by making sure that what it means to be a skeptic is clearly defined. Bill Maher, despite his anti-feminist jokes never made the cut and I think that must be reinforced in people’s minds. Christopher Hitchens is an atheist and a public intellectual, but he is not a scientist or necessarily part of the larger body of science skepticism. I feel that we must stand by our own argument that atheism is not dogmatic and that it only speaks to a theistic belief, or lack of one. In that regard, Hitchens is a brilliant interlocutor in argument for skeptics who hold the atheist position. There are indeed others (minorities and women) that haven’t been brought out front and center for the atheist parade. Many of the most famous and appealing like Eugenie Scott and Neil DeGrasse Tyson simply don’t want to be thought of as atheists first and foremost because it conflicts with the strategy that they have adopted for science education. You have to respect their strategy here and others like them. You have to respect the fact that it might not be the most brilliant move for a woman or person of color to step out in the limelight as a hero to the atheist movement given the demographics of today and what we know they say about belief. I mean it’s easier for a white male to be an atheist hero because of the fact that they are the most non religious group. The direct approach of PZ Meyers or Sam Harris probably wouldn’t be as well received by the underserved groups you speak of if it was adopted by Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, I must say Bill Maher is an anti vaccination nut who is acting irresponsibly.
After reviewing my comment I noticed that my mention of the evidence in support of races being equal was a little ambiguous and I should clarify. I meant that society as a whole has chosen not to accept the evidence available that the people should be accepted as equals regardless of race.
ReplyDeleteGreat post, thank you for writing it! I agree with you whole heartedly. You might be interested to head over to the richarddawkins.net forum and read the thread entitled 'Anyone find this forum a bit sexist at times?' (tried to link to it but it didn't work!) I have been reading with interest (and disappointment, at the anti-feminist sentiments being expressed). Of course RD isn't responsible for what the forum members say, but it still doesn't look good. The thread also mentions the Hitchens Vanity Fair article you link to. It's truly nasty.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, as an atheist feminist I am very happy to know this blog exists because it can feel damn lonely out there. :)
Well, aside from anything else, I don't actually want to see women breast-feeding in a restaurant.
ReplyDeleteSaying the word "bitch" is now misogynist? I must have missed the memo.
ReplyDeleteI'd not heard about the sexism from Hitchens, though I did notice the lack of female contributors to The Portable Atheist. I have to say, my liking of Hitchens had just dropped a few degrees.
ReplyDeleteI'm a white male..please don't hate me!
ReplyDeleteFrom my side, I'd love to see the a strong, atheist woman of colour become prominent in the media.. Bill O'Rielly would quite probably have an aneurysm..
Skeptifem, I have to wonder where you're coming from. Especially using terms like "silly, silly goose" to someone you don't know. If I were to use such condescending language to you, you would probably rip me a new one—with justification. If you are asserting PC victim-status superiority as your license to dish out what you would never yourself take from others, you're not someone I would tolerate.
ReplyDeleteSecond, the objections at Dawkins' site were to language like "recognition of how privilege and positionality undergird the very articulation of atheism as an ideological space that empowers white folk to deconstruct the cultural tethers of organized religion". If there is anything that having freed one's self from the tentacles of religious dogma and becoming an atheist helps to do, it is to recognize bullshit when you see it. I will say this fearlessly and without reservation: Sikivu Hutchinson's language there is total post-modernist bullshit. It is just a different variety of dogma, asserting privilege for her gender/hue/position without any shred of factual justification. It's a slight variant of the warmed-over garbage we used to get in Sunday school, chatechism classes and sermons which claimed privilege for religious dogma and the priesthood behind it, and our BS-attuned intellectual immune systems reject it.
Nothing prevents Sikivu Hutchinson from writing the next best-selling Atheist Manifesto book except her own ability to understand the audience and sell them on her message. The turgid prose of which she is fond is obscurantist and her tone hostile, to list just two of the self-imposed obstacles in her way. Nobody cares what her color or gender is, and if she's worried about that she could publish under a pseudonym (it worked for Alice Sheldon, aka James Tiptree, Jr.). What she can't hide is her lack of ability, so she appears to be arguing for set-asides for post-modernist feminist atheists of color in the market for books. As the folks I used to work with liked to say, that dog don't hunt.
If she's arguing that we should make room for impenetrable, risible, or just plain illogical arguments against theism, she's alienating people who are disenchanted with the BS of religion. That puts her objectively on the side of the theists. With "friends" like her, we don't need enemies.
I rarely post on the blogs I read. I'm new to this one, but am subscribing. You know, such points made by the author of this blog seemed like small ideological bridges we could all cross together. Until I read the article at dawkins.net. No, not just the article. THE COMMENTS!!! I live in a small post industrial town, where churches are everywhere. I was drawn to atheism because of the woman-hating aspects of Christianity. I feel often like a hysteric when I try to explain such things to my closest friends, let alone stand up in a public forum and say what I think. I now feel a bit more alone.
ReplyDeleteWell I'm glad that my opinion is de-legitamized because I'm white. Apparently, no matter how much I profess to wanting people to be judged for their actions, I am more the sexist/racist because of it.
ReplyDeleteOh, I see what you did there, Dave Kielpinski. You tried to further delegitimize me by asserting that I was a racist. Can we try to keep this above the name-calling level of debate, and stick to what I said. You know, when I was talking about people being treated equally. Kthanks.
I'd write more, but my opinions don't matter because I have a penis, and Engineer-Poet is saying it better. Can you please think about what Engineer-Poet says, instead of assuming he (?) is wrong because he has a different viewpoint. That is a very ignorant attidude. (Or is ignorant something only white males can be? Not sure. Apparently I lack the everyone-is-sexist victim perspecitve.)
davidcrash7,
ReplyDeleteOf _course_ your opinions on racism are de-legitimized because you're white. After the last 500 years, what do you expect? Similarly, after the last 3000 years of sexism, yes, most people _are_ sexist. Why does this surprise you?
Oh, and if you want to come off as non-racist, try avoiding arguments favored by racists.
Even if those arguments are logically tight and based firmly in fact?
ReplyDeleteNot only are you using ad hominem argument, but you are also applying guilt by any association, not with the putative racists, but with any valid argument they might use! If you have not read Catch-22, read it now.
It's been going on forever ...
ReplyDeleteHow does one delineate "forever" scientifically? Does "forever" equal, say, forty years? Four hundred? The Russian society had czarinas...
I'm not sure, but my favoured form of journalism finds a manner to express thoughts without filthy language, although I suppose it's nice to hear from another feminine Atheist...
I really don't recommend Catch-22, myself. A disgusting piece of literature, if one can even claim it to be such.
Engineer-Poet,
ReplyDeleteYes, I have read Catch-22, many times. If you think your arguments are based in fact, you need to undertake some serious self-examination. Try reading "The Mismeasure of Man" by Steven Jay Gould for plenty of examples of just how biased these supposedly objective arguments can be.
Oh, and if I had a nickel for every time someone calls ad-hominem on the Internets...
More seriously: do you believe that highly trained experts in a subject know more about it than the average Google U. graduate? I do.
ReplyDeleteNow consider: women have lifelong involuntary training in sexism. Men do not. People of color have lifelong involuntary training in racism. White people do not. So why should men's opinions about sexism matter, and why should white people's opinions about racism matter?
An interesting blog. However you undermine your point by attacking Christopher Hitchens whose article Why Women Aren't Funny you either have read or are mistaken or are prejudiced against. Arguably in the article he is more stereotypical of men and more favourable to women, for one thing he says "Wit, after all, is the unfailing symptom of intelligence. Men will laugh at almost anything, often precisely because it is—or they are—extremely stupid. Women aren't like that. And the wits and comics among them are formidable beyond compare: Dorothy Parker, Nora Ephron, Fran Lebowitz, Ellen DeGeneres."
ReplyDeleteWe're talking about the multi-culti orthodoxy and lit-crit "deconstruction" ideology here. Everyone appears to be entitled to their own culture, except the majority of the USA (no matter if they're a minority elsewhere, or threatened to become a minority here). How exactly ishe ability of people of paler complexions to espouse atheistic ideas (which are a distinct minority position even among their ethnic and cultural group) different from African-American's capacity for this? And how the heck is it "racist" when Hutchinson is disputing her position with religious people of her same ethnicity?
ReplyDeleteIf race has anything to do with Hutchinson's position, SHE is making the claim that religion depends on race (and thus the genes which determine the outward signs of same, such as skin color and facial features), not me. If her co-ethnics are more oppressive in their attempts to enforce religious and other social conformity (which is what she appears to be complaining about, else her atheism would not be such a great accomplishment), that's got nothing to do with racism.
I'm sorry, I don't agree. I read the comments and they weren't dismissive of people of colour or women, they were dismissive of the identity - politics stance of the writer. They disagreed with her, not women in general or people of colour in general. Being non Anglo Saxon or non male does not immunise you from legitimate criticism from the members of the former or anyone else!
ReplyDelete