The hot cauldron of public debate
His considerable reputation as an evolutionary biologist, atheist and intellectual was forged in the hot cauldron of public debate. With forceful clarity and occasional rattiness, he has for decades gone about slaughtering sacred cows like a bloodthirsty butcher. So if Dawkins is now afraid to speak his mind, I’m not sure where that leaves the rest of us. “I self-censor,” he admits. “More so in recent years.” Why? “It’s not a thing I’ve done throughout my life, I’ve always spoken my mind openly. But we’re now in a time when if you do speak your mind openly, you are at risk of being picked up and condemned.”
Well, we’re in a time where Twitter exists, as Dawkins knows. His speaking his mind openly doesn’t always come across well on Twitter. It can at times border on taunting, like when he kept referring to “clock boy.” (In case you’ve forgotten, a boy from a Muslim family made a clock of sorts for a school project and somebody thought “bomb!!” and things went crazy.) He did some borders-on-taunting of feminist women, starting with “Dear Muslima.” Things got heated. He never really seemed to get the point that his taunts (“speaking his mind openly”) at feminist women would trigger avalanches of abuse aimed at those women, because he’s a Name and has that power.
Dawkins is worried that the illiberalism of the left is helping to fuel right-wing populism, driving continued support to Donald Trump and the like. “Every time a lecturer is cancelled from an American university, that’s another God knows how many votes for Trump,” he says. He finds it particularly bothersome when his “own team” attacks him. “I’m much more hurt by attacks from the left,” he says. “When I get hate mail from my own people, that hurts in a way that getting it from creationists doesn’t.” It must have hit home then when Dawkins had his 1996 Humanist of the Year award withdrawn by the American Humanist Association (AHA) earlier this year.
The AHA bestows this prestigious annual award to an admired humanist: recipients have included Margaret Atwood and Salman Rushdie. It lists them all on its website, but if you scroll down to 1996, Dawkins’s name has been scrubbed. He’s gone. Why? Because of a tweet. Back in April, Dawkins caused offence when he wondered why identifying across racial barriers is so much more difficult than across sexual barriers. He wrote: “In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP [The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People], was vilified for identifying as Black. Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as. Discuss.”
Unacceptable. Taunting feminist women, acceptable; questioning gender idenniny, unacceptable.
He recalls reading the historian Jan Morris’s 1974 book Conundrum on transitioning to become a woman. “She felt herself to be a woman trapped in a man’s body,” Dawkins says. “I think that’s a real phenomenon. I have sympathy. But when trans people insist that you say she is a woman, you redefine something. If you define a woman as a human with an XX karyotype, then she’s not a woman. If you define a woman as someone who identifies as a woman, feels they are a woman and has maybe had an operation, then by that definition she is a woman. From a scientific point of view, she’s not a woman. From a personal point of view, she is.”
To put it another way, you can change your gender but you can’t change your sex.
As a matter of “personal politeness” then, he’s happy to use whatever pronouns people ask him to use. “But I don’t like the idea that people can pillory someone like Jordan Peterson for refusing to be compelled to change his language,” he says. In this Dawkins senses something he doesn’t like: a quasi-religious faith that cannot be opposed. Or as he puts it: “Denying reality and it’s a heresy to do anything other than that.”
Quite.
Updating to add discussions here last April of the AHA rebuke of Dawkins and the [cough] strangeness of drawing the line there and not at clockboy or Dear Muslima.
I recall reading somewhere that Jan Morris was perfectly clear about the motivation for his transition–he said something like when he was young and fit he enjoyed being a man, and doing all sorts of adventurous physical things, but as he got older he realised he’d be better off as a woman, so that other people would be more inclined to take care of and support him.
The AHA didn’t express concerns about comparing violent rape to rape by a friend, the whole “Less bad” series of tweets. I found those, like his taunting of a child as a “fraud” to be baffling and I had no idea what he was getting at.
Perhaps he was defending Michael Shermer, Lawrence Krauss, David Silverman; but those tweets certainly should have given AHA more weight to withdraw the award than not genuflecting at the Trans Altar.
The Ahmed Mohamed clock incident was a bit more nuanced than portrayed in the media, and while Dawkins was somewhat rude with his comments, I suspect he was correct with most of them. Mohamed’s clock was not a school project, just something he did on his own. He did not build a clock, but rather took the display and electronics from an existing clock and transferred them to a metal pencil case. Two teachers told him it looked like a bomb and asked him to keep it in his backpack for that reason. He intentionally set the alarm to go off in the middle of one class.
What typically gets dodged in the discussions is why did he build a clock into the side of a metal pencil case? It does sort of look like a bomb with a timer like you’d see in a movie. Was that Mohamed’s intent? Dawkins thinks it was. I’d guess he’s correct. Kids that age like pushing boundaries, and Mohamed was apparently a bit of a prankster.
There are laws against bringing hoax bombs to school, and they initially came down on him like a ton of bricks, citing those laws. That was a ridiculous overreaction. After a couple of hours they decided there was no malice and released him. Was the overreaction because he was Muslim? Maybe. But maybe not — there are plenty of stories of kids of all races getting into ridiculous amounts of trouble due to overzealous application of zero tolerance policies.
Was it kind of silly that Mohamed was hailed as a persecuted genius inventor and invited to the White House? I think so. On the one hand, it was a nice gesture to show Muslims are welcome members of this country. But if he really was trying to be provocative and just got more of a reaction than intended, then I don’t think that’s worth such an honor. But whatever. It’s better than Rush Limbaugh getting a medal and probably dozens of other stupid things.
@Skeletor #3:
You’re overlooking the main reason Dawkins commented on the “clock boy” at all. To a Brit, asking for $15 million compensation — that’s equivalent to the pay for about 10 lifetime’s of work — for what was only a few hours of anxiety and inconvenience, is just absurd. Maybe Americans, being used to the US legal system and its hugely inflated damages claims, don’t see how strange this looks to a Brit, and thus failed to realise why Dawkins commented at all.
Letting 17-yr-olds buy assault rifles and wander around the streets carrying them is also very strange to Brits.
And, even after all this time, interpreting “Dear Muslima” as “taunting” of feminists also fails to understand why he said what he did (which wasn’t “taunting”, but did show some lack of awareness).
I have read a few of Dawkins’ books and mostly very much enjoyed them, he’s a good writer and a keen scientist and thinker. However, writing books, publishing academic papers, and engaging in rigorous scientific inquiry is quite different than popping off unfiltered and unedited on twitter. Even the quality things that are posted on twitter get lost in the sea of impertinent garbage from every dipshit with a phone and an internet connection. It’s just too gigantic of a free for all to navigate with any hope of it making sense. I’m glad there are others to organize and sort through it (here at B&W particularly) so I don’t have to. #TwitterSucks :P
Twitter should be reserved for people like DJT who are unable to write anything substantive elsewhere, then we could ignore it altogether.
And, of course, most Americans are aware that these large damage claims are rarely ever awarded, and even when awarded, even more rarely paid. I imagine most non-Americans are not aware of that.
Failure to recognize that as “taunting” of feminists fails to understand what he said, where he said it, and his follow up. Yes, he was taunting feminists for thinking we needed equality when other women have it worse. That is not a legitimate argument to any cause where the person supporting the cause is correct about the situation – such as the demonstrable inequity in women’s pay, the blatant harassment most women suffer in silence because when they report it they are blamed, insulted, mocked, and often retaliated against, the horrific rape statistics, the horrific domestic violence statistics – need I say more? Dawkins wrote from a position of powerful wealthy white male privilege, mansplaining to feminists why it was, to use his words, “zero bad”.
Why he said what he did is that he is ignorant of what he was speaking of, and oblivious to real pain in his own English-speaking country. He was indeed “taunting”, and intending to.
Ever since the invention of the internet, everyone always puts the worst spin they can on what someone says.
Coel @ 4 – if you’re going to nitpick, nitpick accurately. “interpreting ‘Dear Muslima’ as ‘taunting’ of feminists” is not accurate. I said “borders-on-taunting.” I hedged. I hedged on purpose. I was careful not to overstate it.
You said this hedged claim of mine “also fails to understand why he said what he did.” No it doesn’t. I know all about why he said it. I probably know more about it than you do. He said it in part because he was pissed off that Rebecca disagreed (rather rudely) with something Paula Kirby said at that conference – the Dublin, Elevatorgate conference. He said it in part because Rebecca got on his nerves. He said it in part because he was tired of hearing that women are put off the atheist movement by the bro culture of it.
Coel @ 8 – But that is what he said. That was the whole point of Dear Muslima.
Doesn’t Twitter summon up most people’s worst selves and make them dumber?
Twitter Dawkins isn’t nice, that’s uncontestable.
guest#1. In his book ‘Conundrum’, Jan Morris begins by saying that from the earliest years (s)he can remember, (s)he felt that (s)he was a woman trapped in a man’s body. I honestly do not recall, from my reading of the book a few years ago, in which anguish at the situation is described, any suggestion that (s)he wanted to become a woman because (s)he felts that ‘he’d be better off as a woman, so that other people would be more inclined to take care of and support him’.
I’m an American, and it seems absurd to me. I could see an apology and maybe $10K for punitive damages. But $15 million?
There was also some skepticism about the father’s motives, as he’s a bit of a publicity hound. In one of his previous exploits he agreed to represent Islam in a mock trial where a Christian minister put the Quran on trial. The Quran was found guilty and burned, leading to days of violence in Afghanistan. Not entirely his fault, but he had been implored not to participate in that charade. It’s mentioned on his wikipedia page, with references:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Elhassan_Mohamed
Rebecca Watson often gets on my nerves as well (or did; haven’t heard anything from her in quite a while), but I thought her point that a man hitting on a woman in an elevator could make her feel threatened since she’s essentially trapped in a small space with the man was a good one.
I thought “Dear Muslima” was a petty response, and it seemed odd that Dawkins was interjecting himself into that situation. Ophelia saying he had a previous grievance with her makes it more understandable but no less petty.
I don’t know that it’s disqualifying for a humanism award. It was a stupid thing to do, but I don’t think he should bear the blame for all the cretins that harassed her, since most of them seemed to be independently upset by her comments. He no doubt made it somewhat worse, but I don’t think that was his intent. I think he wanted people to think she was making a mountain out of a molehill, not for people to hurl abuse and threats at her.
@12 well that’s the only approved story now, isn’t it? If I have time I may see if I can find Jan’s original comments, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they’ve disappeared completely down the memory hole. (I recall having heard/read them long before genderism was a thing, so it wouldn’t have occurred to me at the time to record or document them for future reference.)
I really wish Dawkins had come out as a TRA years ago. It would be nice to have him be an embarrassment to the other side for a change. “Dear Muslima” was, of course, chemically pure of any legitimate points what so ever, and any attempt to find some valid argument buried in there is like those Biblical harmonizers who argue that Mark 5:1-2 and Matthew 8:28 are referring to almost identical separate incidents, or that Mark for some reason chose to only mention one of the two (or three, or four, or…) possessed men (cf. “omission is not contradiction”). My response has always been that God would have to be a complete and utter idiot to express himself in such a clumsy way (or “inspire” some human intermediary to do so) if that was indeed what he was trying to say. Same with any “legitimate point” supposedly made by “Dear Muslima”.
You can’t say that Dawkins was responding to some hysterical overreaction on Rebecca Watson’s part, since there was no such thing to respond to. Anybody who has seen Watson’s “Guys, don’t do that” video knows that she didn’t portray the elevator incident as a major atrocity* nor compare it in any way to the treatment of women under Islamism. That was entirely Dawkins’ own framing.
You can’t say that he was making a general statement of solidarity with women under Islamism, since that makes the whole reference to Watson irrelevant, a red herring, changing the subject. But more importantly, bullying Western women into putting up with sleazy male behavior doesn’t help “Dear Muslima” in the least. I wrote the following imagined conversation (from memory) years ago to illustrate the point:
The only people for whom “Dear Muslima” expresses any kind of concern, and the only people to benefit in any way from the sentiment contained in it are sleazy, misogynistic, entitled, straight white male perverts. It’s entirely self-serving. Indeed, the whole things boils down to “Why do Muslim men get to stone their women to death while we don’t even get to sexually harass ours?! There is so much misogyny and sexism in the world, that it’s unfair to white men if we don’t get to enjoy our fair share! We could be treating you bitches a whole lot worse, so shut the fuck up and be grateful that we’re only treating you as eye-candy, incubators and fuck-toys! Now about that sandwich..”
*Indeed most of the video was about how great the conferance where the incident took place had been, and I’d be surprised if her (very calm) reference to Elevator-guy took up much more than one minute at the end.
All substance aside, Dawkins seems to be tone-deaf.
Hitchens had this shtick where whenever he’d refer to one of his books, he’d turn to the audience and say, “Available at fine bookstores everywhere” (with a little smirk). It was funny and self-deprecating. It later occurred to me that by doing this Hitchens was being up-front about what he was selling: a book; here’s were you can buy it; here’s what will cost. He was, perhaps, inviting the audience to consider what his opponent (often a religious figure of some sort) was selling, and on what terms, and what it might cost.
A couple of years ago, Dawkins had a new book coming out. He posted (on Twitter, I think. I’ve lost the reference so this is from memory) “You can buy my book at good bookstores everywhere. If the store doesn’t have the book, its not a good bookstore!”, which just eviscerates the joke.
Steven, I think a lot of Dawkins’ jokes work better in his mind than on Twitter.
Perfect, Bjarte.