• Log In

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

Subscribe on Android Spotify Google Podcasts audible patreon
  • Home
  • Podcast
    • PEL Network Episodes
    • Publicly Available PEL Episodes
    • Paywalled and Ad-Free Episodes
    • PEL Episodes by Topic
    • Nightcap
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • (sub)Text
    • Phi Fic Podcast
    • Combat & Classics
    • Constellary Tales
  • Blog
  • About
    • PEL FAQ
    • Meet PEL
    • About Pretty Much Pop
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Meet Phi Fic
    • Listener Feedback
    • Links
  • Join
    • Become a Citizen
    • Join Our Mailing List
    • Log In
  • Donate
  • Store
    • Episodes
    • Swag
    • Everything Else
    • Cart
    • Checkout
    • My Account
  • Contact
  • Mailing List

Atheism and Feminism Political/Personal Collision (via Salon.com)

July 10, 2011 by Mark Linsenmayer 17 Comments

First atheist

Given that we've been building to this "new atheism" episode for-stinking-ever (it's scheduled to record at the end of August right now) and the next actual recording we'll be doing is on feminism (scheduled for a week from now, but originally scheduled for back in March, so it's not like we're neglecting atheism to do this one), it struck me as serendipitous to see this pathetic she-said-that-he-said-that-she-said piece about Internet bickering from Salon.com.

It wearies me to repeat the story, so you can just look at the article if you want details, but its point is that Dawkins is an insensitive male, since he interpreted something that someone said on a blog the wrong way. I agree with the author of the article (Tracy Clark-Flory) that the blogger (who was complaining about creepy atheist guys hitting on her at inopportune times just after hearing her complain about how she didn't like creepy atheist guys hitting on her) wasn't out of line, and that Dawkins (if the report is correct) was acting dickish, but I barely care about that aspect.

The interesting thing here is the dynamic of people united in a cause, whether it be political, religious, or whichever of these "new atheism" counts as, who, qua people (who are basically stupid and weak by human nature), undermine their own cause by sleeping with each other, or not sleeping with each other, or getting in petty squabbles, or having explosive diarrhea during a conference, or whatever.

I mean, look at you, Mr. or Mrs. or Ms. philosophy person, who probably actually clicked on that diarrhea link in the previous paragraph thinking I'd actually found a funny video of someone having diarrhea at a conference. Shame! Our frivolous, animal nature overcomes our puny reason all too often (as Plato would surely agree, and Nietzsche moreso).

Beyond the characters of those involved, I find the Internet dynamics of this story as fascinating as they are irritating: Can we, for example, launch PEL to fame by saying something provocative about Dennett and getting him to respond, and then we respond back, and Salon.com or maybe even CNN will report on it? Probably not unless it involves sex, and I'd prefer that the concepts Dennett and sex not be joined anywhere near my imagination (no offense, Mr. D.).

OK, there is an actual question remaining here: does the type of militant atheism Dawkins exemplifies have anything in its character that would make its male followers more likely than anyone else to be all creepy and stalkery? I see no evidence of that from this article, but feel free to speculate madly.

Image credit: The comic is from Laughing in Purgatory, and as is my wont, I found it via a 3 second Google image search, this time on "atheism feminism," though I don't see what the comic has to do with feminism. Maybe the feminist point is that we assume all poorly-defined cartoon characters are boys. Shame!

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: Web Detritus

Comments

  1. Archibald says

    July 10, 2011 at 4:02 pm

    ‎”Can we, for example, launch PEL to fame by saying something provocative about Dennett and getting him to respond…?”

    That would be so money! And yes, the diarrhea hook works.

    Reply
  2. Geoff says

    July 10, 2011 at 6:08 pm

    First I have heard of this, and don’t think I will read more about it, but it does feed in to my suspicion that Dawkins really is a bit of a dick.

    ‎internationally recognized as a leading philosopher, biologist and secular moralist http://richarddawkins.net/articles/642096-richard-dawkins-mr-and-mrs-louis-j-appignani-of-jackson-hole-wyoming

    I’ll give him biology, but his attitude seems to put the lie to statements like this.

    Reply
  3. Ace says

    July 10, 2011 at 7:19 pm

    First, I’ll say I was dumb enough to click on the diarrhea link before reading on, was puzzled by the result, came back and felt kind stupid when I read the next sentence. So…have a good laugh at me, your benign little prank worked on at least one reader. 😉
    Second, I agree with the author of the article. I didn’t get from him that militant atheism is responsible for being stalkery (other than stalking Christians and being psychotically obsessed with them online, that is), but I would say myself that Dawkins and the rest of the “rock stars of atheism” have abrasive and boorish personalities that may be attractive for socially inept persons to model, persons which may take their atheist identity seriously enough to go to “atheist conferences” and who may have been attracted to the atheism movement in the first place because people like Dawkins have pretty much promised that atheism is the “promised land” that rewards people with good personalities, instant intelligence, rationality, and a scientific education, all this is yours for simply for possessing the virtue of not believing there are any deities.
    I’m sure that is an attractive promise for a lot of unsavory people. Not to mention that online atheists tend to band together to bother and/or rant about religious people, so I’m sure that’s attractive to creepy people that have found an “socially acceptable” bigotry where you can make friends instead of lose friends for being a creepy stalking bigot.
    I think it is creepy to ask out a girl you don’t know when she is all by herself. The word “rape” does cross many girls minds when they are by themselves and a strange man is the only person around. Dawkins is really inept when he argues about himself and another man being in an elevator. Dawkins is a man, not a woman, most woman can’t down a 12 year old boy.
    Anyway, sounds like the girl handled herself with class, but yeah, both Dawkins and the guy who asked her out when she was by herself in an enclosed space…are both inept.

    Reply
  4. What says

    July 10, 2011 at 8:41 pm

    So basically Dawkins left out the bit where the guy followed her to the elevator to make her complaint sound flippant? How childish.

    Time for a PEL twitter account http://twitter.com/#!/DanDennett
    It’s the best way- 140 characters at a time!

    Reply
    • What says

      July 10, 2011 at 8:42 pm

      You can troll his fans I mean

      Reply
  5. Geoff says

    July 10, 2011 at 8:56 pm

    ‎…undermine their own cause by sleeping with each other, or not sleeping with each other, or getting in petty squabbles…

    Despite saying that I didn’t “think I will read more about it” I obviously did.

    …this person who I always admired for his intelligence and compassion does not care about my experiences as an atheist woman and therefore will no longer be rewarded with my money, my praise, or my attention. I will no longer recommend his books to others, buy them as presents, or buy them for my own library. I will not attend his lectures or recommend that others do the same. There are so many great scientists and thinkers out there that I don’t think my reading list will suffer.

    http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/

    Sort of interesting. So now, Dawkin’s books on Evolution and such, which I have been told are quite good, will not be recommended by Watson because of the schoolboy views he holds on women?

    I think she makes some valid points in the post above, but I don’t think misogyny is more prevalent in skeptic circles than elsewhere. Men can be dicks wherever you go.

    Scott Adams of Dilbert Fame in a brouhaha on salon:

    “Do you support the death penalty for rape, as I do, or are you relatively pro-rape compared to me?”

    http://www.salon.com/entertainment/tv/feature/2011/06/23/scott_adams_dilbert_responds_to_salon/index.html

    Bob Ellis – Australian who believes that feminism is killing the Left or some such thing

    “It is all very unjust; and a question arises from it: Is feminism killing the Left, and why does it seem so keen to do so?”

    “But, in the new world, Strauss-Kahn and Mark McInnes, who was faced a $37 million law suit, for unconsensual groping, are ruined for what, in my day, occurred in drive-in theatres every night.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2780992.html

    Reply
  6. Mark Haag says

    July 11, 2011 at 9:01 am

    If you haven’t already, I propose you consider Walter Kaufmann’s Faith of a Heretic and Critique of Religion and Philosophy for inclusion in the podcast on atheism. He was in a better position to critique modern attempts to reconcile religion with philosophy than the “New Atheists” are, because he was more familiar with the philosophical aims of continental philosophy. His critique is rigorous and passionate, but unlike so much of the New Atheist work, you always get a feeling he is trying to get an accurate account of the ideas he is discussing.

    Reply
    • Mark Linsenmayer says

      July 11, 2011 at 9:45 am

      Thanks, Mark. I’ll check it out.

      Reply
  7. trekker says

    July 13, 2011 at 3:49 am

    Charles Taylor’s “A Secular Age” may be helpful for the “new atheism” podcast.

    Reply
  8. Nullifidian says

    July 13, 2011 at 1:04 pm

    “It is all very unjust; and a question arises from it: Is feminism killing the Left, and why does it seem so keen to do so?”

    “But, in the new world, Strauss-Kahn and Mark McInnes, who was faced a $37 million law suit, for unconsensual groping, are ruined for what, in my day, occurred in drive-in theatres every night.”

    If Dominique Strauss-Kahn is the “left”, then maybe it deserves to be killed.

    I know, I’m so terribly old-fashioned to insist that leftism represent a critique of neoliberalism, not a submission to it, and that the IMF is not an institution that will or can ever be headed by anyone who can be considered a committed leftist, but there you go.

    Also, I don’t see Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s life being ruined for having committed rape. I say committed rather than “charged with”, since the entire prosecution team is already falling all over themselves to see DSK acquitted, and I think that it might be useful at this juncture to remind people that all the physical evidence (bruises, torn clothing, semen) supports the maid’s accusation.

    DSK will get off because his victim hasn’t been behaving like the Victorian ideal of Innocence Ravish’d, then he will go back to France and pick up his life from there. The only lasting change, aside from the presumable psychological damage to the maid, is the fact that NYC might finally ban the “perp walk”—a move I agree with, but I don’t see why they couldn’t have done it when the arrestee wasn’t rich, white, and politically well-connected.

    The fact that rapes apparently occurred in his day at drive-in theaters every night is hardly more reason to accept it than it is to bring back the torture and burning of heretics just because that happened “back in the day” too.

    I feel a little nauseated having read those two paras. I’m sure the complete article is much worse.

    Reply
    • What says

      July 13, 2011 at 7:50 pm

      Sexual assault and rape are two different things.

      Reply
      • Nullifidian says

        July 15, 2011 at 3:17 pm

        What,

        The DSK case is a rape case. There is clear evidence of intercourse which not even DSK’s lawyers are bothering to deny anymore, although that was their first tactic. Now they’ve switched to the argument that it was consensual, which is the standard defense in rape cases when the physical evidence is otherwise against one. If it were just a case of an unsolicited grope, then chances are DSK would have never been arrested, and in the remote possibility that he had been it would have been easier for him to plead guilty and accept a slap on the wrist.

        Reply
        • What says

          July 15, 2011 at 6:44 pm

          The fact that rapes apparently occurred in his day at drive-in theaters every night is hardly more reason to accept it than it is to bring back the torture and burning of heretics just because that happened “back in the day” too.

          I thought he was referring to this http://www.news.com.au/business/markets/david-jones-ceo-mark-mcinnes-quits-over-inappropriate-behaviour/story-e6frfm30-1225881219845 as akin to groping at the midnight theater hence sexual assault not the DSK case or rape case. If he was equating the DSK case and McInnes case as being the same thing he is an idiot.

          Reply
  9. Geoff says

    July 14, 2011 at 4:42 am

    I feel a little nauseated having read those two paras. I’m sure the complete article is much worse.

    It sure is.

    Reply
  10. What says

    July 17, 2011 at 5:33 pm

    I found this article interesting http://exiledonline.com/conspirators-unmasked-in-the-strauss-kahn-drama/

    Reply
  11. Ace says

    July 18, 2011 at 3:44 pm

    I just came back here to update my original comment after thinking about this a little more.
    I still stand by my original comment, but what I think may have angered Dawkins and the men who got upset over this and feminism and whatnot is that it is kind of a feminist canard to paint men as dangerous, rapists, etc. And I could see how that could raise the ire of men when that kind of implied gender slander is thrown out there when nothing happened.
    I don’t think this reaction has anything to do with atheism, or the rock star of atheism, I think it’s a male backlash to feminist slanders of the male gender, and that’s why the fact that this woman was a feminist seemed to be an important point to men who were outraged over this.
    It’s not fair at all that the male gender has to put up with being “wrong” for simply activating a feminists over-active imagination, but it could have been worse, she could have lied and said he did try to man-handle her or something, which does happen.
    And so while I stand by my comment that it’s creepy for a strange man to isolate a woman by herself, and that the guy was inept to do that, and Dawkins was inept for not understanding it…I also think men for their own safety and well-being should not put themselves in a situation where there are no witnesses and it would only be his word against hers. Yes, women need to be guarded against being potentially vulnerable to dangerous men, but there are dangerous women out there and men need to protect themselves from potential dangers a woman could inflict on him too if they happen across the wrong woman at the wrong time…and there are no witnesses to clear his name.

    Reply
  12. Ace says

    July 18, 2011 at 3:54 pm

    I’ll add too that my thinking this is a male backlash to feminist slanders is what makes Dawkins comment make more sense. I think he was offended as a man, and hence, why he contrasted what this woman has to put up with from “evil” men here, vs. what woman in the middle east have to put up with.

    I don’t think atheism has anything to do with his reaction, or the like-reactions of the males in the atheist community.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

PEL Live Show 2023

Brothers K Live Show

Citizenship has its Benefits

Become a PEL Citizen
Become a PEL Citizen, and get access to all paywalled episodes, early and ad-free, including exclusive Part 2's for episodes starting September 2020; our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally; a community of fellow learners, and more.

Rate and Review

Nightcap

Listen to Nightcap
On Nightcap, listen to the guys respond to listener email and chat more casually about their lives, the making of the show, current events and politics, and anything else that happens to come up.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Select list(s):

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Support PEL

Buy stuff through Amazon and send a few shekels our way at no extra cost to you.

Tweets by PartiallyExLife

Recent Comments

  • Seth Paskin on PEL Eulogies Nightcap Late March 2023
  • John Heath on PEL Eulogies Nightcap Late March 2023
  • Randy Strader on Ep. 309: Wittgenstein On Certainty (Part Two)
  • Wes Alwan on PEL Nightcap February 2023
  • Kunal on Why Don’t We Like Idealism?

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.

Blog Post Categories

  • (sub)Text
  • Aftershow
  • Announcements
  • Audiobook
  • Book Excerpts
  • Citizen Content
  • Citizen Document
  • Citizen News
  • Close Reading
  • Combat and Classics
  • Constellary Tales
  • Exclude from Newsletter
  • Featured Ad-Free
  • Featured Article
  • General Announcements
  • Interview
  • Letter to the Editor
  • Misc. Philosophical Musings
  • Nakedly Examined Music Podcast
  • Nakedly Self-Examined Music
  • NEM Bonus
  • Not School Recording
  • Not School Report
  • Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts
  • PEL Music
  • PEL Nightcap
  • PEL's Notes
  • Personal Philosophies
  • Phi Fic Podcast
  • Philosophy vs. Improv
  • Podcast Episode (Citizen)
  • Podcast Episodes
  • Pretty Much Pop
  • Reviewage
  • Song Self-Exam
  • Supporter Exclusive
  • Things to Watch
  • Vintage Episode (Citizen)
  • Web Detritus

Follow:

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Apple Podcasts

Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · The Partially Examined Life, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Copyright Policy

Copyright © 2023 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in