Richard Dawkins is a misogynist? Really?

[onager]

During the recent TAM-9 (The Amazing Meeting) in Las Vegas, the Richard Dawkins Foundation announced that it will sponsor child care at future atheist/skeptical conferences. The Foundation wants to make these events more accessible to women and lower-income families.

Apparently this has been in the works for a while, and was not a reaction to Shaftgate/Watsongate etc. Though I wish Dawkins good luck in getting everyone to believe that.

But this is how Dawkins often works. In 2007, the Oklahoma legislature had a Bash-Dawkins competition when he came to that state. The pols started up a McCarthyesque jihad to find out who was paying the Awful Atheist to pollute the unsullied minds of Okies. Dawkins quietly waived his speaking fee, to cut that "payment" argument off at the knees. Then, just to really annoy them, the Dawkins Foundation donated money to an Oklahoma scientific organization.

And in this case - instead of getting into an endless Battle Of Micturition over his boneheaded comments on Shaftgate, he just stepped up and did something useful.

For the record, I was annoyed by Dawkins' comments about Watson, and said so over in the A/A group. As opposed to some other commenters, who IMO figuratively piled his life's work on a bonfire, then danced around that fire whooping and hollering about his evil, evil misogyny.

For more info, just Google "dawkins foundation child care." This news is all over the atheist/skeptic blogosphere.

[CrawlingChaos]

1. Saint Richard

"But this is how Dawkins often works..."

Yes, he is known to walk the earth, doing good works. :eyes:

Here's more evidence of his beneficence: http://educationactivistnetwork.wordpress.com/2011/06/08/protest-against-richard-dawkins-and-his-new-college-today/

I find it ironic that you use the term "McCarthyesque jihad" about a man who belongs right beside Pamela Geller and Peter King on the front lines of their anti-Muslim persecution crusade.

While I'm at it, men are parents too you know. Isn't it a trifle sexist to assume childcare is provided for the womenfolk?

[LeftishBrit]

2. I strongly oppose the current rush to privatization in British education, and this institution in

particular. But it is not Dawkins' institution. As he says on his site, 'This is the brainchild of A C Grayling, NOT me. I have no idea why the BBC chose to use my face. Professor Grayling invited me to join the professoriate and give some lectures. I accepted the invitation, partly because I liked the idea of lecturing to non-scientists after reaching Oxford's compulsory retiring age, partly out of respect for A C Grayling, and partly out of respect for the other professors from around the world who had already agreed to lecture, and whom I felt honoured to be invited to join.'

This is not of course an excuse IMO. I would have preferred him and everyone else to Just Say No to anything involving this increase in profit-driven education.

www.noconfidence.org.uk (not about Dawkins specifically but about this whole issue.)

Dawkins is neither a saint nor a villain. Being an atheist does not make a person a progressive hero, any more than it makes them a criminal. I have no idea what Dawkins' views are on economic issues, and his views on social issues seem to be only so-so. But one area where he *has* been progressive is his opposition to the Iraq war right from the beginning:

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/120-on-the-eve-of-war

Nor has he been a promoter of the 'war on terror'. This recently appeared on his blog (not by him, but presumably with his approval):

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/642329-the-war-on-science-us-science-cuts-pay-for-war-and-we-all-suffer

So to equate him with the likes of Pamela Geller and Peter King is just like equating all Muslims with Al Quaeda!

[CrawlingChaos]

9. He is certainly no saint

But there is no question he's been exalted to guru status among his followers. Note the beatific tone of the OP. And you can't criticize the man, no matter what sort of heinous crap comes out of his mouth, without subjecting yourself to a tidal wave of abuse. I swear, if I showed up at the Catholic League and took potshots at the Pope and I'd take less of a beating. Pretty creepy, if you ask me.

And I maintain the Pamela Geller/Peter King comparison is absolutely fair. Dawkins was somewhat anti-war at the beginning of his rise to celebrity, but he has, well, evolved, shall we say. He's now an anti-Muslim, War on Terror propaganda machine to rival Geller or King:

http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/05/richard-dawkins-islam-is-an-unmitigated-evil/

Did you know that Dawkins has featured the videos of horrific anti-Muslim racist Pat Condell on his website? When those videos were posted here at DU, they were quickly removed for their offensive content. But in Richard Dawkins' mind, they amount to "reason". Truly disgusting.

[LeftishBrit]

10. No one said he was

'Beatific tone of the OP'? Where? Just because Onager opposed witch-hunts against him?

And considering that both King and Geller have actively supported extremist organizations in my country (the IRA and EDL respectively), I find your equating Dawkins with them indescribably offensive. And I'm not even an enormous fan of Dawkins but some things are beyond the pale!

[CrawlingChaos]

11. You call that a "witch hunt"?

Sorry, but that is hilarious. Dawkins said some very offensive things, after which a number of people decided they would no longer support him by buying his books and/or attending his events. That's really your idea of a "witch hunt"?

A witch hunt is what he propagates against Muslims, using demeaning and dehumanizing caricatures to spread fear and hate. That's what I call "indescribably offensive".

The beatific tone I referred to was the OP saying "this is how Dawkins often works.." and then made it sound like his beneficent hand is always in motion, behind the scenes, working toward the greater good of humankind. GMAFB. He's a hatemonger.

[LeftishBrit]

12. The 'witch hunt' is people who have a hate-on about him because he's an atheist

And most of these are not Muslims; and many of them hate Muslims as much as they hate atheists.

[CrawlingChaos]

14. That's not what this thread is about

It's about a boycott of Richard Dawkins by atheists, resulting from his "Dear Muslima" letter and subsequent offensive remarks.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

3. Rule #147 of Dishonest Debating:

"When your quarry shows approval of any public personality, immediately accuse him or 'worshipping' or being part of a 'cult'. Alternatively, mockingly prefix the mentioned personality's name with 'Saint.' Those three tactics are of course not mutually exclusive."

[onager]

6. Comprehension fail

The Foundation wants to make these events more accessible to women and lower-income families.

Which would include men.

Try reading the whole post next time.

[CrawlingChaos]

7. You're the one trotting out this puny gesture...

as evidence that Dawkins is not a misogynist. That pretty clearly implies that you feel childcare is a woman's thing.

Wasn't that the whole point of your post? If not, why bring it up?

[skepticscott]

4. Don't be silly..he's not a misogynist

he's a "raving" misogynist....that's the really super bad kind.

[rug]

5. Is he holding it in an elevator?

[Iggo]

8. He's the asshole who hit on that woman in the elevator?

I hate that guy!

That one action has proved beyond a doubt that atheism is evil.

Thanks, Richard Dawkins. Thanks a lot.

[edhopper]

13. No. he is not "that guy"

He commented on a blog post by the woman.

[Iggo]

15. .

;-)