My Time With Richard Dawkins (Or, Why You Should Never Meet Your Idols)

[rug]

Sarah · September 5, 2013

I’ve only been an atheist for about four or five years. I was raised Catholic, eventually became a non-denominational Christian, then a “well there’s SOMETHING out there” deist, to a “who really knows?” agnostic, and eventually became a solid atheist (around 2009 or so). This was in great part due to the writings of PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins.

So, in July of 2011, when I had just graduated college and saw that the Secular Student Alliance was hiring an Event Specialist to help plan a tour for Richard Dawkins’ children’s book, The Magic of Reality, well, of course I jumped on it. To my great surprise, I was hired within two days of sending in my résumé. In a week, I bought a car, a smartphone, and packed up my entire life to move several states away. Little did I know what I was in for.

The first stop on the tour was Miami. Hours before the first event, there were people lining up outside the doors. As a member of the team, I was allowed in the auditorium before the event began. It was me, Dave Silverman (President of American Atheists), Elizabeth Cornwell (Executive Director of the Richard Dawkins Foundation), Sean Faircloth (then newly-hired Director of Strategy and Policy for RDF), and Richard Dawkins himself.

At this time (September of 2011), Dave Silverman was heading up the Reason Rally Committee. There was still quite a bit of planning and promotion that needed to be done, so Dave asked Richard, Elizabeth, and Sean to make videos to promote the Reason Rally. (The video Richard ended up making is still viewable.) Richard was standing behind the podium, and he asked Dave something along the lines of, “What exactly is the Reason Rally?” Dave started explaining it, and as he did, someone who was waiting in the line outside opened the door to peek inside and we could all hear a lot of noise. I rushed up the aisle and made frantic “shut the door” gestures at the people peeking inside, and they did. As I walked the ten feet back, I couldn’t hear everything Dave was saying, but I heard the name “Rebecca Watson.” Richard suddenly had a very angry look on his face and I heard him almost shout, “No, absolutely not! If she’s going to be there, I won’t be there. I don’t want her speaking.” and then Dave immediately replied, “You’re absolutely right, we’ll take her off the roster. It’s done.” Richard huffed for a moment, Dave continued to placate him, and then he made the video.

http://skepchick.org/2013/09/my-time-with-richard-dawkins-or-why-you-should-never-meet-your-idols/

[cbayer]

1. I had a similar experience as I began to rise within the ranks of

a professional organization.

Sometimes you don't want to see the sausage being made. The politics of these kinds of organizations can be both enlightening and alarming.

In my experience, organizations whose leadership (and membership) is mostly white, straight, educated males are really the hardest to change. Relinquishing power and authority to others is not going to come easily.

Anyway, I really understand where she is coming from. I also supported things for the bigger cause that were real compromises for me and supported individuals who I became very disillusioned with over time.

In the end I got out, and I am glad that I did. I applaud her for staying in.

[TreasonousBastard]

2. I have no idea if there's any backstory to...

the Watson/Dawkins war other than the elevator business, but since skepchick is Watson's home, anything slamming Dawkins found there should be read with some skepticism itself.

[rug]

3. Here's another person's view.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/09/05/how-does-richard-dawkins-corner-the-atheist-market/

[TreasonousBastard]

26. Not so far removed from Sarah's...

if I cared any more about either of them I'd want to see someone neutral have a say.

I suspect most activist atheists, and certainly humanists in general, are kinda put off by the whole thing.

[TreasonousBastard]

27. Not so far removed from Sarah's...

seems they are friends. If I cared any more about either of them I'd want to see someone neutral have a say.

I suspect, however, that Dawkins' refusal to share the stage with Watson has less to do with "male privilege" and sexism than Dawkins just being generally a dismissive, arrogant asshole.

[Leontius]

4. It seems that as a general rule the "great, leaders and idols" are usually arrogant bastards

and well generally assholes. There are of course exceptions.

[cbayer]

5. To some degree, even if they weren't arrogant assholes to begin with,

the power and adoration is very seductive in pushing some in that direction.

I'm sure many of us have observed this first hand.

[skepticscott]

6. Only shallow people with no life

put people they don't even know up on pedestals. Ideas should be celebrated, but idols always have to be brought down from lofty perches.

[rug]

11. So should some shitty ideas.

[rug]

14. Are you ever able to post anything on DU without surly personal remarks?

Think about it.

Meanwhile here's an example of a shitty idea in practice.

"I think it says a lot about the atheist movement, that a famous speaker can use his position in order to keep someone else off the lineup, and the movement willingly obliges."

[msongs]

7. the "god" of the bible is trillions of times more brutish, sadistic, and nasty lol nt

[cbayer]

8. Lol Are you really comparing Dawkins to god?

That's one of the funniest things you've said here.

[skepticscott]

9. Are you saying that the God of the Bible

isn't guilty of far more bigotry and murder than you accuse Dawkins of?

[rug]

10. How can that be if God doesn't exist?

[skepticscott]

12. The question is directed at someone who believes otherwise

unless she'd like to declare that she doesn't think the god of the Bible exists, and that, by extension, all of those Christians are dead wrong.

[rug]

15. Since you consistently assert you do not believe in a god, who do you blame for it?

[dimbear]

16. O noes! Two atheists of opposite sexes have a spat?????

Can such things be?

[cbayer]

17. Spat? That's exactly the problem here.

When women complain about overt sexism in organizations being led by white privileged straight men, other white privileged straight men dismiss it as a spat.

Good going, dimbear.

[dimbear]

18. A spat is a petty quarrel.

I don't think that misses much.

[cbayer]

20. No, it's classic. It's exactly what men do when women complain

of sexist behavior. They minimize and dismiss it.

Well done.

[dimbear]

21. That's a remarkable discovery. People of opposite sexes don't have spats.

I'll make a note.

[cbayer]

22. The irony of this is that you have the gall to post frequently about the

patriarchy and sexism within religious institutions.

Perhaps those are just spats between opposite sexes?

You've got a situation here where the men are in charge and one is wielding his power to exclude a woman who has made a complaint about sexual harassment.

You, sir, are no better than they. But keep pointing it out when you see it in groups you don't like.

Unbelievable, but it shouldn't be surprising. I'll make a note.

[dimbear]

24. It's true I sometimes post about the nasty way religious institutions betray women. I never seem to

post that a celebrity refuses to appear on the same panel with another. That stems from my sense of importances and priorities.

It is beyond your ken whether I am better or worse (or not) than anyone else, BTW. That's for me to know.

[cbayer]

25. I am truly sorry that you don't get this.

I would have expected more.

When men use their positions of power to marginalize, dismiss or exclude women, that's a problem.

It can be a huge problem or a relatively inconsequential one, but it all stems from the same root.

If not addressed, it will fester, and organizations that should be combatting it can turn into those that they rail against.

I don't expect you to necessarily acknowledge that, but I am honestly sorry to see you take this position.

[rrneck]

30. A good question to ask might be

whether the woman is excluded because of gender, or because of money and power. They get mixed up.

I never saw Dawkins as a sexist, although he might be, but he sells a lot of books and he's a big celeb in the culture wars. Cultural conflict, much like home loan derivatives, is a huge source for revenue for a lot of people.

[cbayer]

31. Apparently she was excluded because she had made an accusation of sexual harassment.

This is a pretty good summary of the event and Dawkins response to it (the accusation was not made against him, btw).

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/09/05/how-does-richard-dawkins-corner-the-atheist-market/

My take away is that she was excluded because of the accusation, which is clearly gender based, and that Dawkins response to it was highly sexist.

Gender is positively correlated with money and power, so I think it might be futile to try and separate them.

Creating cultural conflict can indeed be a real personal win for some people.

[rrneck]

32. Creating cultural conflict is the biggest win

for those who make a living at it.

I'm on a phone right now but as I recall she was hit on by some drunk in an elevator and got creeped out about it. From there the usual logical fallacy grew into an indictment of all things atheist with a side order of feminist theory. I expect Dawkins less than charitable response was more a protection of culture war market share than anything else.

[cbayer]

33. Well, I guess that is one way to describe (minimize and dismiss) it.

I don't see how this grew into an indictment of all things atheists at all, and I've never seen anyone say that.

It did lead to some incredibly heinous and misogynist threats against her after she reported it. I also led to a lot of cavalier dismissal of the suggestion that there might be a problem within the community that needed to be addressed.

I agree that Dawkins response was more a protection (and promotion) of his own agenda, as are many of his responses.

Did you happen to catch his latest remarks on "mild pedophilia"?

[rrneck]

35. Only two people on this planet can adaquately describe what happened in that elevator.

That's Rebecca Watson and some guy. Ms. Watson wasn't psychically injured. The police were not summoned. No arrests were made. In fact, I'm not aware of any evidence that the indecent occurred at all.

Here is what we do know:

Rebecca Watson has a communications degree, a blog and a podcast. She also has rent to pay. The term "elevatorgate" gets 77,000 hits on Google. This entire controversy, including this OP and this subthread, is directly or indirectly related to the self reported impressions of one woman regarding the affect of one man in an elevator at 4 o'clock in the morning. This is the same woman who "write(s) about science, skepticism, feminism, atheism, secularism, and pseudoscience".

It's a culture war puree, with combatants selecting the palatte of memes that will package the best for their respective audiences.

As far as I'm concerned they're all hogs at the trough, and Watson has her two front feet in it just as much as any of the others.

[cbayer]

36. You are correct, but it's the reaction that she got after using it as an example

of what men shouldn't do that really became the issue. She didn't accuse anyone of assaulting her, just harassing her. It wasn't that it was indecent, but that it was inappropriate.

I understand your point about what motivates people and how they begin to feed off the controversy. You are right, we may never know exactly what happened, but it's the dismissive attitude of some and, even worse, the extremely hostile backlash from others, that merits attention. The outright misogyny was startling, to put it mildly.

Not all hogs are created equal or are playing on the same field, if you know what I mean.

[rrneck]

37. How do we know the unfortunate reactions were from men?

It's the internet. They could have been from anybody - male or female - for a whole host of reasons. How many of those hostile reactions were from teenagers just out to pull her chain? How many were from women giving her fodder for more controversy?

There may have been face to face confrontations, and if so they were inappropriate. But it appears that the bulk of the problems she has experienced have been online from anonymous comments.

Don't you find it hypocritical that a woman who touts herself as a sort of spokesperson for rational thinking would make unfounded accusations based on a subjective standard? I mean, shit, she has a blog called Skepchick. The more I look at this the more a dismissive an attitude seems appropriate. I am skeptical of the skepchick. She is certainly gaining more from feminism that feminism is getting from her.

[cbayer]

38. All of that is possible, but she has not been the only voice complaining about

sexism within some of the atheist organizations and meetings, and that includes face to face encounters.

It doesn't help when the male leadership is so dismissive and hostile towards these complaints.

My point is that they have an opportunity to show some leadership around these issues - to be entirely different than the religious organizations which have institutionalized patriarchies. There have been some attempts to do this, and that's good.

Anyway, I don't want to be in the position of arguing for her. I have followed the story with some interest and have been inside organizations run by older, white, privileged, straight men. I know that the problems can be very real, particularly in convention or meeting settings. I would like to see lots of sunshine and an active approach to addressing them.

[rrneck]

39. I agree that sunshine is a good thing.

But it depends on what is exposed to the light. I think the truth is that those rich, privileged, white, straight men don't care who you are. You don't even exist as a person to them. So you can claim greviences associated with race, gender, and sexual orientation all you want and they will simply have the culture war division churn out another product to tell you what you want to hear. And there will always be somebody with whom you identify to sell it to you.

You can always hire one half of the poor to kill the other half.

Jay Gould
19th century industrialist.

[dimbear]

34. Speaking of religion betraying women, don't miss this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014589881

Don't read right before lunch.

[PotatoChip]

19. Off topic, but ha!... I know Sean Faircloth

Worked w/him for a couple of years about a decade ago. Kind of an arrogant little fellow.

I was unaware (but unsurprised) that he moved on to an RDF position.

[rug]

23. That's a coincidence.

I just wiki'ed him. He was pretty active during his time in the Maine legislature.

[struggle4progress]

28. Mr Dawkins is a man much impressed with the rightness of his own views and very adjusted to the idea

that he should have his own way

My own suspicion is that his self-certainty, and contempt for others, originate in his upbringing as a member of the colonial class in Kenya Protectorate and his subsequent indoctrination as a member of the privileged class at what the UK custom so charmingly calls "public school"

[okasha]

29. That explains a lot.

The wogs start at the church door.