Please note this is a parody blog post attempting to poke fun at the arrogance and hypocrisy that Richard Dawkins can sometimes come out with. I respect and admire Dawkins for all his work promoting atheism, and espousing science and rational thinking. I do not so much like his sexist attitudes, that sometimes come to the fore.
No offense is intended! I am merely trying to make the point here that it's rich for Dawkins to effectively betray women in the Western world by saying that sexism doesn't matter, and "look at how unlucky poor Middle Eastern women are", then also claim that he is being unfairly victimised in some nasty articles, when he very well knows that atheists and secular bloggers in countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh risk persecution, arrest, torture and fear for their very lives every day.
Today, he sent this tweet out:
***
"Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins
What do faith-heads do, given that they can't answer our arguments? 1) Call us strident, shrill. When that fails, 2) Call us racist, sexist."
***
However, the problem with this is that it isn't only "faith-heads" calling him those things. Dawkins has enough enemies close to home, due to the way he ignores valid concerns from various groups, including women. But no, those aren't relevant, because they're "First World Problems".
I wonder if he's ever considered the possibility that it might be more fruitful to address first-world problems first and let the slow bleed-through into the Middle-East, affect change in its own slow but sure and religious-conflict free way? Our cultures aren't entirely isolated, people travel between here and countries such as Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia etc. every day. If they saw the ever-increasing difference between the cultures and it looked desirable to them, don't you think they'd want to start affecting that change back home? And once conditions improve for minorities, something tells me the scales of religious oppression slip away from the eyes, and greater secularism ensues. I think there is a two-way causality link between secularism, and conditions for and tolerance of, women, gay people and other minorities. Once one grows, the others do. It's not clear to me that the only answer is to enforce secularism to cause the other changes we want to see.
So, I've taken his horrid, hateful and pitiless jab at Rebecca Watson from 2011 (his later explanation for which was entirely unsatisfactory) and twisted it back at him.
***
"Dear Third World Atheist,
Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had the threat of being burned at the stake. . . don't tell me yet again, I know you aren't allowed to abandon Islam, and you can't leave your religion without leaving your family and leaving the country, and believers are allowed to beat you, and you'll be stoned to death if you commit apostacy. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor First-World cousins have to put up with.
Only this week I heard of one, he calls himself "Dawkins", and do you know what happened to him? A journalist wrote a nasty article about him. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He called him an Islamophobic secular fundamentalist. Of course Dawkins objected, and the article wasn't only about him but Sam Harris and a deceased man called Christopher Hitchens as well, but even so . . .
And you, Third World Atheist, think you have dogmatism to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.
Yours,
A man concerned with "First World Problems"."
***
I admit the Salon and Al Jazeera articles were appalling, quote-mined hatchet jobs. But just look at how Sam Harris has handled the affair. In a much more professional manner, and has for my money left egg on the faces of his critics.
I just think Dawkins needs to get a bit of grip on these issues!
***(Postscript)***
Dawkins' despicable original comment in the aftermath of elevatorgate:
***
Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don't tell me yet again, I know you aren't allowed to drive a car, and you can't leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you'll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.
Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep"chick", and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn't lay a finger on her, but even so . . .
And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.
Richard"
***
Well Yuck!
Dawkins' "explanation" for his rude comments:
***
"Rebecca's feeling that the man's proposition was 'creepy' was her own interpretation of his behaviour, presumably not his. She was probably offended to about the same extent as I am offended if a man gets into an elevator with me chewing gum. But he does me no physical damage and I simply grin and bear it until either I or he gets out of the elevator. It would be different if he physically attacked me. "
***
Right, so basically, we need to let the little things slide whilst there are bigger problems elsewhere, even if we can't really do anything about them directly. Makes sense, as Dawkins would say.
Dawkins is often unnecessarily provocative. Even the phrase "faith-heads" is probably ill-advised. Having possible associations with the idea that there is something wrong with those individuals. There is nothing wrong with religious people except some bad ideas in their head. They are often good, honest nice people, and we shouldn't go out of our way to criticise them or call them names just for the sake of it.
ReplyDeleteI probably wouldn't call his jab at Watson hateful- it was silly and ill-advised though. As for his reply that was an extremely poor use of a metaphor, surprising given that Dawkins Science writing career has been based in part on his brilliant use of metaphors.
I agree Dawkins could be more respectful at times. Of course, he is still a wonderful Science communicator and a brilliant advocate of education and Atheism. But he is not perfect. Who is?