Religion
Related: About this forumRichard Dawkins has lost it: ignorant sexism gives atheists a bad name
He may have convinced himself that he’s the Most Rational Man Alive, but if wants to be the face of a welcoming movement, he’s doing a terrible job
On Twitter these last few days, Dawkins has reverted to his old, sexist ways and then some. Photograph: Murdo Macleod
Adam Lee
theguardian.com, Thursday 18 September 2014 06.45 EDT
I became an atheist on my own, but it was Richard Dawkins who strengthened and confirmed my decision. For a long time, I admired his insightful science writing, his fierce polemics, his uncompromising passion for the truth. When something I’d written got a (brief) mention in The God Delusion, it was one of the high points of my life.
So, I’m not saying this is easy, but I have to say it: Richard Dawkins, I’m just not that into you anymore.
The atheist movement – a loosely-knit community of conference-goers, advocacy organizations, writers and activists – has been wracked by infighting the last few years over its persistent gender imbalance and the causes of it. Many female atheists have explained that they don’t get more involved because of the casual sexism endemic to the movement: parts of it see nothing problematic about hosting conferences with all-male speakers or having all-male leadership – and that’s before you get to the vitriolic and dangerous sexual harassment, online and off, that’s designed to intimidate women into silence.
Richard Dawkins has involved himself in some of these controversies, and rarely for the better – as with his infamous “Dear Muslima” letter in 2011, in which he essentially argued that, because women in Muslim countries suffer more from sexist mistreatment, women in the west shouldn’t speak up about sexual harassment or physical intimidation. There was also his sneer at women who advocate anti-sexual harassment policies.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-atheists-bad-name
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/510656024169447424
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)about this obsession you have with Dawkins. You start OPs about him quite a bit.
You know he's just a guy, right? That he has no atheist superpowers?
Maybe you want to call out sexism in people that actually have the ability to make some change in their organization. Or that are actually part of an organization. I bet if you think hard enough, you can come up with some people.
rug
(82,333 posts)about your sensitivity to criticism of Dawkins, in this case from an atheist who proudly discloses his atheism.
Somehow, I think it's more reliable to heed his counsel than yours.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)He has written and said some really profound and awesome things. His biology work is, I hear, ground breaking. He has also written and said some really stupid things and likely needs to work on his sexism problems. But all of that has absolutely zero effect on me since, again, he ain't my leader.
Conversely, have you seen the way you and others lose there shit and/or go into power-apologist mode when there is criticism of the RCC?
rug
(82,333 posts)There is help available.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I would assume that you post things with the hope/understanding that people respond.
Guess you just like hearing yourself talk.
rug
(82,333 posts)For some reason you are fixated on my posts and find a need to turn and divert every one of them to the topic of the RCC.
Case in point, post 22. QED.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)And inconsistent.
From a church with 100% male priests; one opposing contraception and other Women's Issues. All in the name of God the "Father." And the "Son."
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)You really should heed your own advice.
rug
(82,333 posts)Let me know if you want it.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)....again! You're fave hobby! That an looking for bogus complaints about Richard Dawkins.
rug
(82,333 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 23, 2014, 04:16 PM - Edit history (1)
See 139.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)In this single "get the last word in" game, perhaps you will explain why there are over 50 (I stopped counting at 52) posts between you and a single other poster?
Get that last word in!
okasha
(11,573 posts)Pure male privilege speaking there.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)you certainly seem to lack it.
My response was to rug who was clearly trying to indicate I was an apologist for Dawkins (remember our lesson on apologist from yesterday?). I'm not an apologist for him because he is nothing to me other than an author of some interesting books I've read. He's not my leader. He's not the atheist leader. That's why criticism of him has zero effect on me.
Perhaps you also missed the part of my posts where I say that he does have a problem with his sexism. Don't let that change your strawman building project, though.
TexasProgresive
(12,154 posts)I am no fan of Dawkins on any plane but it seems wrong to conflate one conviction with another unless there is a real connection.
There does seem to be, as the article points out, rather pointedly imo, some correlation between the male leaders of atheist organizations and sexism.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Do you have evidence of this correlation that involves more than one person? Do you believe there is a correlation between sexism and leaders of the Roman Catholic Church?
rug
(82,333 posts)Did you read it or are you just looking for a tangent to leap to the RCC?
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)There were some mentions of sexism among other atheists as well, but it never claimed a correlation between being atheist and being sexist. If it is fair for you to post an article about how one sexist gives all atheists a bad name is it not fair for me to ask if you feel the same way about sexists in the RCC?
rug
(82,333 posts)Furthermore, Dawkins doesn't give "all atheists" a bad name - or a good name - any more than Paul Shanley gave all priests - or all Catholics - a bad name.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)In that case however you seemed to try to present it as proof of a correlation between sexism and atheism.
rug
(82,333 posts)Maybe dancing around it is preventing you from understanding it here.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Both the headline and the word endemic come from an op-ed piece however, not from actual data.
rug
(82,333 posts)Feel free to dismiss those women's concerns.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)You don't seem willing to accept actual data which shows 100% of Catholic priests to be male, but an op-ed columnist uses the word endemic and you cite it as proof of correlation.
I never dismissed any women's concerns, I merely asked you to present data which you have failed to do.
rug
(82,333 posts)Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I have asked you for data to show a correlation, so far the only evidence you have been able to come up with is a single word in an op-ed piece. I don't deny there are sexist atheists out there, but if atheists are going to be singled out for increased scrutiny then you need to give data to show they are more sexist than the general population.
rug
(82,333 posts)You're trying to turn out into a discussion of a line of male Popes from the first century.
Tu quoque is called a logical fallacy for good reason.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I provided you with data which shows that 100% of the Catholic Church leadership is made up of men, you have not provided any data to show the level of the problem of sexism among atheists. If you want me to single out atheists for criticism then present me the data that shows why they should be singled out.
rug
(82,333 posts)Including that post.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)These are your words from this very thread (post 25)....
As opposed to rhetoric and talking points.
To each according to his need.
You said that yet you have yet to provide any data, all you have provided is rhetoric and talking points. If you yourself say data is needed for discussion then provide that data and we can discuss it. Asking for you to provide evidence for your assertions is not a logical fallacy.
rug
(82,333 posts)Actually, keep going. You're making the OP's point stronger by the post.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)So far you have presented no data at all. None. Zero. Zilch.
If you would at least make an effort to find a piece of actual data I would discuss it with you, but I am not going to pretend the problem of sexism is limited to atheists and focus all my commentary on atheists when I see no reason why they should be singled out.
I do think sexism is a very important issue that needs to be discussed, I just think narrowing the discussion down to pretend that the discussion should only involve sexism by atheists while ignoring the sexism in religious institutions does no one any good.
rug
(82,333 posts)Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Feel free to start one. Don't forget to put in the data.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)And in the math- and reason-related professions?
rug
(82,333 posts)But rug will give you something to think about.
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-03/natures-special-issue-proves-sexism-alive-and-well-science
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)1) This suggests there are fewer women with expertise in science and engineering.
Then 2) among other reasons for this, it suggests this one: "Women disproportionately drop out of scientific careers early on, possibly because of the demands of raising a family, a lack of female role models and a perception that these careers are 'not for them,' as Hannah Valantine, dean of leadership and diversity at the Stanford School of Medicine, says."
Here Hannah Valantine seems to suggest that women do less well in such careers, in part because of self exclusion: among other reasons, they desire to raise a family.
With fewer women in science, engineering, some might expect less interest in the critical scientific perspective. Valantine confirms that in part, by allowing that many feel that such things are not for them.
To be sure, we need to examine the institutional pressures that result in such figures. But the fact would remain that for whatever reasons, just or unjust, proportionately more males have 1) interest, 2) training, and 3) employment in matters relating to critical, scientific thinking.
TexasProgresive
(12,154 posts)regardless of belief, who are sexists.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)sexist views in the general male population. Fairly closely, I would think.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)sexism among atheist "leaders" or sexism among the leaders of the RCC?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)that's not really the point.
Here is a movement with a growing number of organizations, actions and participants that has the opportunity to do this right.
They have the opportunity to recognize and address sexism and take a hard stand against it.
Just being better than the RCC when it comes to sexism is a really, really low bar.
There has been clear and blatant problems within the atheist community. This is a time when outreach and providing a welcoming, affirming attitude towards those who may be taking the step of acknowledging their atheism is important.
Dawkins has done some great things in terms of making it safer and more acceptable to identify as an atheist, but his attitude towards women is harmful.
If he is not challenged by those within the community, he is highly unlikely to change.
And that would be a shame.
rug
(82,333 posts)As opposed to rhetoric and talking points.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Popes 1) Male 100%; 2) Female 0%
Deity: "God the Father," Male. Son: Male.
rug
(82,333 posts)Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)than I have from any post of yours.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)The graffiti wins.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I can present data that shows the RCC will not even allow women to serve in leadership positions.
rug
(82,333 posts)Two caveats:
1) It's not the topic of this thread, much as you yearn for it to be.
2) Be attentive to how you define leadership.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)You can't pretend we are only allowed to talk about sexism among atheists in this thread however much you may wish that were the case.
rug
(82,333 posts)By that standard I'd be more concerned about the Electoral College than the College of Cardinals.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I am no fan of the electoral college either, but women can and do serve as electors so I don't see how it relates.
rug
(82,333 posts)the Electoral College in less time of existence has made more strides toward equal rights than the College of Cardinals. Why would you be more concerned about the Electoral College regarding sexism?
rug
(82,333 posts)Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Yes, it is a shame that the US has yet to elect a woman President and that is related to sexism. The difference between the US electoral system and the Catholic church however is that our electoral system does not prohibit women from serving in leadership positions, the Catholic Church does.
rug
(82,333 posts)You're going farther and farther afield from the OP.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)You are the person that brought up the electoral college but when I respond to your words it is me that is moving away from the OP apparently. I guess you are allowed to move away from the OP but I am not supposed to respond to you when you do.
I never said the American electorate is sexist, I said that sexism is the reason there has not been a woman President. There is a difference.
The point still stands however that a woman can legally run for President in the United States and if they get enough votes they will take office, the Catholic Church on the other hand will not even consider a woman for a leadership position as they have an official policy of sexism.
rug
(82,333 posts)I don't think you realize how ludicrous that is and I do think you will go to any lengths to distract from the problem stated in the OP.
The author writes about the concerns of women experiencing sexism at atheist conferences and here you are talking about . . . . what?
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Your position is totally hypocritical, you want us to single out atheists for criticism but insist that we don't talk about the official policies of the Catholic Church which are overtly sexist. If you want to talk about sexism I am more than willing to talk about sexism, what I am not willing to do is single out atheists and pretend that the problem of sexism begins and ends with them and act as if the sexism within religion should be ignored.
rug
(82,333 posts)
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)
Clearly you don't want to address - at all - a problem seen by many atheists. I wonder what their common denominator is.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I never said anything about the group as a whole, I was talking about you specifically. You hold atheists to a higher standard than you hold the Catholic Church, that does not mean the entire religion group follows you.
I am willing to discuss the problem of sexism among atheists if you will show me the data so I can understand how the problem of sexism among atheists compares with sexism among the general population. If you want me to single out atheists then present the data to show me why atheists should be singled out, if you can't do that then there is no discussion to be had.
rug
(82,333 posts)Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)How detached.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I know very well that sexism exists including among atheists. I have no evidence however to suggest that atheists are any more likely to be sexist than the general population. If we are going to address the issue of sexism then we can not limit the discussion to one group of people without any evidence that group is worse than other groups.
rug
(82,333 posts)Without data.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I know enough about the issue of sexism to discuss it in general terms without any new data. What I will not do is limit the discussion to a single group of people without data to show me why that group needs to be singled out. Show me the data as to why atheists need to be singled out for special condemnation and I will discuss it.
rug
(82,333 posts)Right now.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)It is better to bow out now than continue to be asked to present data to back up your claims when you know as well as I do that such data does not exist.
rug
(82,333 posts)For obvious reasons.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)You are trying to limit the discussion of sexism to one group of people however, while I am refusing to accept your narrow frame and want to discuss the big picture. Your insistence that we limit the discussion to one group of people that you don't like shows that you are not concerned about sexism, you are just trying to attack atheists. If you opposed sexism then you would be able to admit that it is sexist for the Catholic Church to exclude women from leadership.
rug
(82,333 posts)Do you find the actual topic too uncomfortable to discuss? Would you rather discuss Islamic sexism or Mormon sexism instead?
Assuming you are in fact an atheist rather than a Poe, you are providing all the data necessary to validate the author.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)That includes Catholic sexism, Islamic sexism, Mormon sexism, and yes atheist sexism. What I am not willing to do is focus entirely on the one group of people that you are trying to smear while ignoring the sexism that exists in religious groups.
You are the one who is really refusing to discuss because you are trying to limit the discussion to be only about atheists. I have said repeatedly that I would discuss if I am not limited to only discussing the group you want to smear.
rug
(82,333 posts)It's too bad you consider the commentary of a person undoubtedly more involved with this organized movement than you could possibly be to be a smear.
Yup, you cannot discuss this either rationally or logically.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I am an atheist, but I have no atheist leaders that I follow and no associations with any atheist groups. None of the atheists I know have any association with any atheist groups either.
When I was talking about smears however I was not talking so much about the article that was posted, because my main objection to the article that was written is that it is too broad brush but I don't think the author meant it as a smear.
Your behavior in this thread however is the behavior of someone who is trying to smear a group of people. The author of the article you posted never demanded that we limit all discussion of sexism to atheists, yet that is what you have been demanding. You refuse to discuss sexism with in the Catholic Church, but instead you demand we focus exclusively on one group of people you don't like. If you were serious about fighting sexism you would be open to discussing sexism everywhere it surfaces rather than trying to single out one group for condemnation without even presenting any data to show how widespread sexism is within that group.
rug
(82,333 posts)
Do you have the slightest idea of what you're typing?
BTW, who exactly are you referring to here?
Not to be impolitic but you're contradicting yourself, all within the same post. Fascinating.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)There was no contradiction in what I said, when I said I was not a part of any group I was referring to an organized group. I maybe could have been more specific and used the word organized, but if you think you found some huge contradiction because I didn't specify the difference between a general group of people and an organized group you are really grasping at straws.
rug
(82,333 posts)Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)That Facebook page has almost 10,000 likes, that is more people than some small towns have. Of course those sites only represent a tiny fraction of America's atheists, but I guess if even a few atheists associate with one another that is enough for you to call atheism an organized movement.
Check this out, there are also wine clubs.
http://wine-tasting-clubs.wineclubdirectory.net
By your logic wine drinkers must be an organized movement because a few of them have organized wine enthusiast groups.
rug
(82,333 posts)Do yourself a favor. Read the article again before embarrassing yourself further.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I am not denying sexual harrassment happens, I just want you to cite the specific cases so I can condemn those cases in which it does without using broad brush smears against atheists in general. I am more than willing to condemn sexism among atheists, but I am not going to limit my criticism of sexism to only atheists. You are the one that is embarrassing yourself by insisting that only atheists should be talked about.
rug
(82,333 posts)Start here.
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Incident_at_World_Atheist_Convention
There are many more but this is the most famouse one. It happened at a - gasp - atheist convention. They must have coincidentally stumbled in at the same time.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)She was wronged, and obviously it needs to be codemned. Sexism is a big issue around the world, and atheist organizations are certainly not exempt. I am not aware of any atheist organizations that ban women from leadership positions like the Catholic Church does, but if any do exist they should be condemned as well because such a policy is obviously bigoted.
okasha
(11,573 posts)have been men. Tsarist Russia did better than that and was quite proudly NOT a democracy.
edhopper
(33,467 posts)What a monarchy is?
Are you saying Tsarist Russia was less sexist than America is?
Are you saying America is more sexist than the RCC?
What point are you trying to make?
okasha
(11,573 posts)had four ruling Tsaritsas--two Catherines, Anna and Elizabeth. The US has yet to elect a woman President--ie., head of government. In this respect it also lags behind the UK, Ireland, Germany, Argentina, Pakistan, Liberia, Chile, India, Israel, the Philippines, Iceland and the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. Pretty shameful for a nation that's had almost 250 years of unbroken constitutional democracy, wouldn't you say?
edhopper
(33,467 posts)just being an American gives me no right to criticize one of the most misogynistic organizations on Earth.
What was I thinking?
okasha
(11,573 posts)The ERA was not ratified when it first came out of Congress. Now it wouldn't even make it out to the state legislatures.
We do not have earning parity for men and women. It is still legal to pay a woman less than a man for the same work.
We have alleged liberals defending a patriarchal asshole who discounts the trauma of date rape and opines that women who drink too much are responsible if they're raped.
And that isnt even the tip of the iceberg.
edhopper
(33,467 posts)Dawkins is much worse than the Pope or the Catholic Church, they would never defend a rapist.
And America is much more sexist than the RCC or any other country, it's obviously the most sexist place on earth.
And simply living here, I should never cri9tisize sexism elsewhere. No matter what I have personally fought for.
Response to edhopper (Reply #69)
okasha This message was self-deleted by its author.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Do tell how you are able to cipher out a correlation concerning atheism but you are somehow gobsmacked about guessing as to that correlation concerning your religion?
rug
(82,333 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)are male? Interesting.
rug
(82,333 posts)QED.
Nay
(12,051 posts)firsthand, but I have no doubt the reports from women who have been harassed and attacked online are true. I HAVE noticed that many young atheist men seem to be Libertarian, and I think this third factor may be the source of the sexism. Just a thought.
rug
(82,333 posts)phil89
(1,043 posts)rules, tenets, commandments or dogma. It's simply a position on one issue and has nothing to do with Dawkins. Atheists can follow and believe him or not, it has no effect on their status as disbelievers. Seems the religious types don't understand we don't have to take orders from Dawkins to be atheist.
rug
(82,333 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)among some groups and individuals.
It's not about taking orders, it's about being welcoming and receptive to those out there who want to "come out" and join the growing number of atheist groups.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)but I don't think that is going to happen.
While I see fewer and fewer people who rise to defend him, there is still a significant number of people out there who just don't want to let go.
In the meantime, I agree with the author that it is likely that many organized atheist groups will move past him and the one who will be hurt most badly will be him.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,309 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)He has always had the intellectual honesty to state his opinions and respond to others'.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)When is he going to let women have equal footing in the church and allow them to have autonomy over their own bodies?
rug
(82,333 posts)
Start a thread. People must know about this!
Make sure it has facts and not the usual lame snark and talking points.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)groups or organizations?
If so, do you think that's ok because it also exists within the RCC?
If not, why do you think a significant number of women (and men) are speaking out about it?
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Double standard.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)If what you are saying is that your response was intended to target one single individual, then I will leave you to it.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Last edited Thu Sep 18, 2014, 11:22 PM - Edit history (1)
as deviating for children, insisting that only the most fundamentalist and literalist interpretations of Scripture are valid, citing Kersey Graves and Alexander Hislop, warning us to not trust academics, and ranting about the Popish-Muslim threat to Civilization they were, like, Free Presbyterians or something
now I just don't know anymore!
It's obvious that everything he has said about God and religion must be wrong then.
as long as nobody is grabbing your ass while he says it.
edhopper
(33,467 posts)Something more than his indelicate comments?
rug
(82,333 posts)But I might enjoy some people grabbing my ass as he does.
What would be wrong with that.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)No one in this thread that I can see.
The point is that this is a time when there is a growing atheist community and that is a good thing. There is an opportunity for it to be different that the religious communities that many atheists reject. There is an opportunity for it to be affirming and inclusive and not sexist or otherwise bigoted.
Dawkins has the opportunity to support that and does have a bully pulpit. Instead, he appears to have an incredible tin ear when it comes to sexism. This is not particularly surprising in light of his age and background, but he of all people could see that some enlightenment is in order here.
It says absolutely nothing about his previous work either in science or in the area of religion.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)As a female medical professional, you would be in the middle of this controversial subject.
How do you feel about the objectivity of the data there? 1) For some time Med Schools have been admitting more and more women; though Medicine is perhaps not a strictly scientific research profession, but also "caring" profession perhaps?
In the meantime, 2) males are overwhelming dominant in science and engineering.
What do you see as the reason for the dominance of males in these fields?
Do you feel that their training (as opposed to any alleged inherent ability) currently (not inherently) gives them any advantage over women on matters pertaining to objective science?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You may want to pursue this in a different group. Education? Feminists? Science?
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)
carolinayellowdog
(3,247 posts)as a male librarian, I belong to a female-dominated profession that seems to me as much the epitome of critical thinking as any scientific field.
rug
(82,333 posts)Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Certainly, great encyclopedists.
LeftishBrit
(41,202 posts)They are overwhelmingly dominant in some sciences. Females nowadays dominate in biology; experimental psychology; veterinary science; physiology; and as you say, medicine. Males dominate in maths, physics, and especially engineering and computer science. There are somewhat more males in chemistry as well, but it's not a huge difference.
On the whole, males tend to choose sciences that deal with non-living things, and females choose sciences that deal with living things.
This article may be of interest:
http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~lds/pdfs/spelke2005.pdf
Not quite sure how this topic got into religion!
LeftishBrit
(41,202 posts)Dawkins, though he has been writing popular books on evolution since the 70s, published his first book relating to atheism, 'The Devil's Chaplain', in 2003; and the first to grab lots of attention, 'The God Delusion', in 2006. His prominence as an advocate of atheism started with the publication of that book.
By then, churchgoing had long been a minority pursuit in the UK; and while vague agnosticism is probably commoner in the UK than either strong religious belief or strong atheism, it is quite respectable not to believe in a God, and this was the case long before 2006. There have been explicitly atheist MPs since the 1880s, for example.
I am a second-generation, lifelong atheist, who lives in the same city as Dawkins, and have never actually bothered to attend any of his talks on atheism though I easily could. Atheism just means not believing in a God; not treating Dawkins as some sort of Pope of atheism.
'ignorant sexism gives atheists a bad name'
I would instead say that ignorant sexism gives people a bad name - and specifically is not uncommon among 70-something white English males, perhaps especially those educated at old-fashioned single-sex boys' private schools: a group to which Dawkins certainly belongs.
carolinayellowdog
(3,247 posts)that are the problem. Having all too much painful experience with the cultic mindsets of various Americans, the creepy vibe I get from Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins is reminiscent of a dozen or more other "celebrities" who have made their reputation spouting BS about religion. Maybe people in the UK are past all that bullshit by and large.
