Religion
Related: About this forumPLAYBOY INTERVIEW: RICHARD DAWKINS
by CHIP ROWE
Rate this Article :
Richard Dawkins, the patron saint of nonbelievers, caused a stir earlier this year during a debate with the Archbishop of Canterbury, who noted that his opponent is often described as the world’s most famous atheist. “Not by me,” Dawkins replied before providing his standard explanation—a supreme being is possible but highly improbable—which led a London newspaper to proclaim that the world’s most notorious skeptic was hedging his bets. Far from it. Dawkins, at 71, remains an unbending and sharp-tongued critic of religious dogmatism. Like any scientist who challenges the Bible and its lyrical version of creation, he spends a great deal of time defending Charles Darwin’s theory that all life, including humans, evolved over eons through natural selection, rather than being molded 10,000 years ago by an intelligent but unseen hand.
snip>
PLAYBOY: What is the A pin you’re wearing?
DAWKINS: It stands for “atheist.”
PLAYBOY: Like a scarlet letter?
DAWKINS: It’s not meant to reflect that. It’s part of my foundation’s Out Campaign. It means stand out and reach out, as well as come out for the beliefs you hold, and give the reasons. It’s a bit analogous to gay people coming out.
PLAYBOY: Although atheists can marry one another.
DAWKINS: True.
PLAYBOY: Is there a better word for a nonbeliever than atheist? Darwin preferred agnostic. Some have suggested humanist, naturalist, nontheist.
DAWKINS: Darwin chose agnostic for tactical reasons. He said the common man was not ready for atheism. There’s a lovely story the comedian Julia Sweeney tells about her own journey from devout Catholicism to atheism. After she’d finally decided she was an atheist, something appeared about it in the newspaper. Her mother phoned her in hysterics and said something like “I don’t mind you not believing in God, but an atheist?” [laughs] The word bright was suggested by a California couple. I think it’s rather a good word, though most of my atheist friends think it suggests religious people are dims. I say, “What’s wrong with that?” [laughs]
http://www.playboy.com/playground/view/playboy-interview-richard-dawkins
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
rug
(82,333 posts)"I think a particular god like Zeus or Jehovah is as unlikely as the tooth fairy, but the idea of some kind of creative intelligence is not quite so ridiculous."
mr blur
(7,753 posts)I'm sure he'd have no reason to avoid giving a direct answer.
edhopper
(37,368 posts)that the more abstract ideas of God, as opposed to the literal anthropomorphic ones like Zeus or Jehovah, are not easily rejected as illogical. So he personally doesn't use the tooth fairy analogy. But he is still atheistic because of the lack of booth proof or a need for any God concept for the Universe to work.
rug
(82,333 posts)The more anthropomorphic the description of a god, the more ludicrous it becomes.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)...that while no currently posited god has any evidence whatsoever to support its existence and all ideas about them are either internally contradictory or obvious anthropomorphic inventions, some as yet undefined (and likely always so) entity as the basis of creation is not impossible. We have a pretty damn good idea of how the universe came into being and it doesn't need a creator, but that does not prove it didn't have one. But as someone already posted, the more vague and ineffable our ideas of such an entity are the less reason there is to consider them illogical. This however means also that the less illogical ideas of such a thing are, the less sense it makes to worship it, the less we can say we know about it, the less immanent the postulate must be, and thus the less relevant it is to our daily lives.
Deism is always a much less troublesome concept to reason than a clearly defined god, and here I think Dawkins is saying that if we take Deism to its extreme and make it a possibility rather than a positive claim, it cannot be considered unreasonable - i.e "it's not illogical to suppose that a creative intelligence about which we can make no supported true statements might have created some subset or even the whole of the universe". Here the poster boy for atheism clearly puts the lie to an often expressed but baseless canard - that atheists by definition believe no gods are possible. Instead the statement above, and in a more implicit sense Dawkins' statement, defines weak atheism. We don't believe any claims so far made about any gods, but we do not reject the possibility that there may be one or more of them, about which we can make absolutely no positive claim at this point, because we know nothing whatsoever about them. Offler the crocodile god may exist, or Bilious the oh-god of hangovers (thanks Pterry), or slightly less implausibly, some transcendent formless interconnected intelligence may have wobbled a couple of membranes down at the Planck level 14 billion years ago or so and set it all off. We just don't know and don't believe anybody who tries to say they do without providing evidence.
rug
(82,333 posts)If the possibility of a "creative intelligence" is allowed, all sorts of other possibilities come into play. And if one accepts that possibility, much, if not most, of the challenges to religion and theology become discussions of anthropolgy.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)Yes there are near infinite possibilities. Possibilities of infinitesimal probability, but possibilities. The basic "Matrix" premise is a possibility. Alien bioengineering is a possibility. Divine ex nihilo creation is a possibility. Moebius universal loops are a possibility. But not all possibilities are equal or equally worth bothering with. Any possibility to be worthy of anything other than bar-room woolgathering needs to have evidence or cogent inductively valid argument as a supporting basis. Divine creation lacks any that could not also be applied to the possibility of the Matrix being true.
I would suggest that it is not challenges to but reasons for religion and theology that become discussions of anthropology though. You're setting up special pleading argument if you think any theological claim is any more in a position to be challenged than the Matrix premise. It needs to be established as a valid explicative theory before challenging it becomes necessary. Divine action is not the null hypothesis that stands if all else fails and must be rejected above any other option, no matter how fond believers often are of gods in gaps. It is simply a remarkably common idea arising from human pattern-seeking and sentience.
rug
(82,333 posts)And it is nowhere near discussing infinite fallacies.
Either there is a creative intelligence or there isn't.
The notion of "creative intelligence" suggests: 1) understanding, which must encompass self-awareness, and 2) creation. It is no less than a notion of intelligent design, though not in the fundamentalist caricature.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Since that theory of creation doesn't require the complexity of yours, you should disprove it first before asserting your god (and all its trappings associated therewith, like its interest in what the genders are of people who want to receive its blessing for marriage).
rug
(82,333 posts)Since "creative intelligence" is Dawkins' phrase, why would he find it less ridiculous than Zeus or your favorite simile. Insert "invisible pink unicorn" for tooth fairy and you'll be back on topic.
"I think a particular god like Zeus or Jehovah is as unlikely as the tooth fairy, but the idea of some kind of creative intelligence is not quite so ridiculous."
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Seems this guy fits the bill.
rug
(82,333 posts)
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I would have a much easier time believing in a super-advanced alien species than I would any concept of "god" as proposed by humans.
Seriously, what kind of creative intelligence would care what genders two people are when they decide to commit their lives to each other?
rug
(82,333 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)He's way cooler than the god a lot of people believe in.
&feature=relmfu
Worf is way cooler.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Not that that would take much for most gods.
rug
(82,333 posts)Even Squidward is cooler.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Q is FAR cooler than Squidward!! 
rug
(82,333 posts)Mr. Bean would never be seen with Q.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)dmallind
(10,437 posts)Expecting it to be "challenged" when not a single scrap of evidence or compelling argument for it has yet been presented is the exact definition of special pleading because you expect it to be treated differently from any other possibility.
rug
(82,333 posts)I assume that opinion is the result of some thought on the subject by Dawkins.
tama
(9,137 posts)Can you name a hypothesis that is not a product of creative intelligence?
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)I would suppose he means something akin to Carl Sagan musing about the "beautiful" ideas in Hinduism. It's better than plain ol' wood nymphs.
It's just "not quite so ridiculous".... but still ridiculous.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Brilliant move in light of the issues regarding sexism within the movement right now.
rug
(82,333 posts)The cover, though, was unavoidable.
As I recall, though, Dawkins was on the wrong side of elevatorgate. He wrote a particularly obnoxious and unfunny mockery of it on Myers' blog.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)
And of course I know that you only get playboy for their insightful articles.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts) cbayer
(146,218 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Not to mention Hugh Hefner's own personal politics, being rather lefty himself(Pro-Choice, Pro-Equality, etc.)
The magazine is neutral, as far as I can tell, politically, but look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_in_Playboy_2010%E2%80%932019
Barney Frank was interviewed, so was Paul Krugman, just in the past two years, along with a shitload of other celebrities. Historically it included Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr., Gore Vidal, Jesse Jackson, Elton John, Jimmy Carter, the list goes on and on.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Mr. Hefner may hold some leftists views, but his feelings towards and exploitation of women far outweigh any of that, imo.
Pro-equality my ass.
At a time when the movement that you are considered a leading spokesperson for is struggling with internal issues of sexism, it is politically naive (or worse) to grant an interview to a magazine built around sexism.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)I've never heard of evidence of coercion on the part of the publication of Playboy towards the models, many of which were rich and/or famous before being featured in Playboy. You can claim, rightfully I think, that magazines such as Playboy are a part of a consumerist culture that commodifies everything, however, that's a criticism of capitalism, not just Playboy, and it goes far beyond exploitation of women, but of men as well.
Granted, men are more visual, so magazines such as Playboy are more popular, but the fact is that its rather harsh to judge the magazine as "sexist" for "exploitation" in exclusion of all other types of exploitations out there.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)What a load.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)than anyone else exploiting others for money(employment). I don't understand this insistence that its a "sexist" magazine because it shows women without clothes. Is that really the litmus test for sexism in your world? If women do it for money, they are exploited, but if they do it for free, that's just normal?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Because if you do, we will find no common ground here.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)not in the sense you use the word.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Rather than acknowledge the quite liberal people who have been interviewed by Playboy, she sidetracked it into a discussion about nude pictures.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Sorry for the side track, but I really couldn't let her comments stand. Some people just have a problem with the human body, I don't get it.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)What about them? Did they (MLK included) committed a horrible moral failing? Or does that only count for prominent atheists?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)My point is this - the atheist/secular/humanist movement is going through some growing pains and one of the issues it is confronting is sexism within some of it's organizations.
One of the major spokesmen and a person that many would consider a leader (see the very wording in this article) grants an interview to a men's magazine that most progressive women would call sexist and exploitative.
That's just plain dumb, imo. Unless, of course, you, the interviewee, are one of the reasons that the movement is having problems around this issue to begin with.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)Have a nice day.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You have a nice day as well.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)was the shining example of inclusion of women?
What sexism within its organizations? What institutional or policy sexism exists? Would you hold any religious group to the same standard of the explanation you are contemplating, or is this yet another example of anti-atheist bigotry as we would expect?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Playboy sexist? I don't know, you tell me:
And don't miss this intriguing article in this month's issue:
The Mansion hosts a star-spangled Fourth of July: Crystal deejays as Jon Lovitz, Bill Maher, Corey Feldman and others frolic with our patriotic Playmates. Just another reason to say "God Bless America".
dmallind
(10,437 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)I don't like anti-theists any more than I like christian fundamentalists.
And I don't like some individuals who I find insulting and rude.
That's what you see.
onager
(9,356 posts)That trait sure runs in the family.
My point is this - the atheist/secular/humanist movement is going through some growing pains and one of the issues it is confronting is sexism within some of it's organizations.
Why, thank you for jumping right in and trying to help us thru our "growing pains." We huddled atheist/secular/humanist masses are all agog at your generosity.
But while you and your buddies are trawling the Internetz, looking for "skeptical/feminism trouble" articles to post with masturbatory glee, you might have noticed that this battle is being fought very publicly. Every detail has been aired and re-aired and no Final Authority has ordered everybody to STFU and quit making the community look bad.
While we appreciate the offer, perhaps your time might be better spent helping some other organization confronting its own "issues" without as much honesty and transparency. Like a certain Rome-based religious corporation.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Home run.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)cbayer takes her teeny little ball and runs home to daddy because her feewings were hurt.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)
katemary
(26 posts)Because I've only just found out RD appeared in playboy that is why. And disappointed in him!
katemary
(26 posts)Hi this is my first time on this site after trying to find out if Richard Dawkins really had appeared in playboy. I would agree with you 100%. The magazine is not a liberal place for women, in it they have one place and one purpose - to be young dollies to be looked at. Lets face it Richard Dawkins is 50 years older than the women in the magazine and for that reason only would not have been in it were he female - that alone should have been grounds for his not appearing. But there are many other reasons to.
Atheism is now being associated with sexism in a way which it really shouldn't. Part of that is a tendency for some male atheists to sexualise women way out of context without being taken to task at all. His own website has in the past been an old boys school where women were discussed in terms of their sexiness or otherwise regardless of what the issue was or what they had to say. I recall it linking to an interview with him and a female scientific presenter on the evolution of the eye. Less than half way down the comments section the men were saying how sexy she was etc, culminating in one imagining christians masturbating over her and how that would be a good route into atheism. And just guess what this scientist was wearing? Jeans and a jumper, Richard Dawkins was showing more flesh.
Appearing in playboy set them all off again and brought casual sexism back to his site. He should have had more sense, it didn't improve his standing with men at all and damaged it with a lot of women.
The recent olympics was the first in which all countries had to include women athletes, meaning that for the first time women from Afghanistan, Saudi etc were braving real dangers at home to compete. In that same week the parents of a muslim woman in the UK were jailed for her murder for standing up for her rights and Pussy Riot were in court. There was no reason for his website to include those facts, it isn't a feminist site after all, and it didn't disappoint in that it didn't. BUT in that same week Richard Dawkins linked to a protest on you tube where some youngish women had taken their tops off painted sharia on their breasts and had run past the olympic arena. An event of such undewhelming insignificance it appeared nowhere else. So why bother with that if not the others? Other than they were topless and it gave some of the men there another chance to comment on their looks. If he'd wanted protests against sharia he only needed to look in the stadium where there were women doing things other than titillating. Again alone that was not an issue, alongside everything else it was. And again should have alerted him to the problems with appearing in playboy.
Of course fully dressed women do appear on his website, but preferably in burkhas as victims of oppresion. Other than that they only seem to feature when they become impossible to ignore. Like Malala Yousafzei, who incicdently didn't appear till she was shot despite having been blogging about girls education in Pakistan for ages.
I think he may well be the problem. I don't know if its correct but he is now seriously giving the impression that he thinks women should be either jolly totty with their tits out for men to ogle or victims of religious oppression - and that is a bit of an anachronism in this day and age - or should be. He may be sexist or just too arrogant to admit he's in the wrong ever but I wish he weren't the spokesperson for atheism anymore. He has become atheisms sacred cow and just I wish someone with a more up to date attitude to women and far less arrogance could take those reins. Like PZ Myers for example.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)...George Clooney, Hale Berry, the Dixie Chicks, Hugh Laurie, James Cameron, Jennifer Lopez, Johnny Depp, Jon Stewart, Larry Page, Martin Sheen, Michael Moore, Robert Redford, Tina Fey, Tim Burton, Willie Nelson...
...wait, there's more...
...Barney Frank, Dan Aykroyd, Paul Newman, Bill Gates, Brett Favre, Mohammed Ali, Pelé, Curt Schilling, Lech Walesa, Leonardo DiCaprio, Yoko Ono, Freddy Mercury...
The list goes on and on. Which of these committed a horrible moral failing by failing to turn down the invitation for a Playboy interview?
katemary
(26 posts)Lovely list, now just how many of those were naked, waxed, surgically enhanced, young and airbrushed to look even younger? RD certainly wasn't. And it isn't a moral issue either so don't muddy the waters with that, its a general attitude to the role of women problem. If you'd read the post I was agreeing with cbayers position that it is the rest of the magazine and its quaintly Victorian attitude to womens roles.
It's religion that is supposed to have the old fashioned traditional view of women as objects for the use of men - not atheism! Yet at this very moment the moderately religious are holding vigils for a young girl - also religious - that has been shot by the taleban for demanding that girls have a right to an education and to have aspirations to become anything they want - doctors, politicians, engineers, writers, hairdressers. To have roles where they are defined by what they do, say and think as people not by the sorts of sexual objects that some men want them to be!
And whilst the religious are doing that RD is being interviewed for playboy where the highest, most complex aspiration a women is expected to have is undoing a bra! With no other purpose in life than to look submissive for men. What the hell is that saying to women about atheism? That it is firmly stuck in the 1950s when women knew their places? Something has gone seriously wrong when RD is actively managing to make religion look more enlightened about the rights of women than atheism!! Cos it really shouldn't be.
Those womens only currency is their willingness to take their clothes off and look readily submissive. A very simple aspiration, but ultimately pointless given that their are hundreds of equally pretty women coming up behind them equally capable of undressing and looking willing. They aren't exploited but they are brainwashed into being as sexist as the men looking at them. Sad!
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)Did RD do something wrong by being interviewed by Playboy?
Did any of the other people?
The answer is either yes to all or no to all. So, which is it?
kwassa
(23,340 posts)The issue is the suitability of Playboy as a venue for an interview, in the light of recent issues of sexism within the atheist community.
Address that.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)in religion. So why is only Richard Dawkins supposed to worry about doing a Playboy interview? Why not any of the other interviewees?
kwassa
(23,340 posts)It isn't sexism if other people do it, too?
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Because of a little thing called a DOUBLE FREAKING STANDARD.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)This isn't about sexism, this is about attacking atheists and Richard Dawkins for a perceived failing that no atheist has ever claimed wasn't a problem among freethinkers, or indeed ALL humans.
The non-believing community differs, however, in that it is having this discussion in the open, with all allowed to participate. For this, believers who are frustrated by their total inability to address the arguments of atheism cackle with glee because they think they have some kind of weapon with which to finally land a blow.
The hilarious part is, of course, that once again they whiff and hit themselves. What's the ratio of female to male priests in your church, kwassa? Has your church conquered sexism? How's the Catholic church doing in its battle for sexual equality? While you rail against Dawkins, your church institutions are doing far more to perpetuate sexism than a freaking interview in Playboy.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)And when you get right down to it, THAT is the problem.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)It didn't work for them either.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Ratio of male to female priests?
I don't know, though I know many female priests, including the head of the entire US church, Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts-Schiori. Many of the new seminarians coming through are either female or gay or both. The previous rector of my church was a lesbian living in an open relationship with her partner, who was also welcomed in our church. A previous associate rector in a different church we attended was also a lesbian, was married to her partner at National Cathedral in DC by the Bishop of Washington after the laws changed legalizing same sex marriage in DC.
Are things equal? Nope. But they are headed that direction.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Female to male, that is. Your church has its own sexism problems, as does just about every church on the planet.
But no, the thing you whine about is Richard Dawkins being interviewed by Playboy. I don't need to invent your motivation, it's quite plain to see.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Our church is doing something about it, as much as you wish to deny it.
Let's see atheists do the same thing.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I never said your church wasn't doing something (you really need to stop making up crap about me) - they have indeed made good strides. But there is still sexism in your church. That's my claim, and it's correct, as you have just admitted.
And atheists ARE working on this. Out in the open, with all welcome to participate. So few churches can claim that!
http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/08/atheism/
http://www.alternet.org/belief/7-amazing-atheists-who-arent-old-white-guys?paging=off
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/08/27/following-up-on-last-nights-atheism-discussion/
So tell me why, exactly, it's a particularly bad thing for Richard Dawkins to be interviewed by Playboy? Once you've done that, make sure to write a letter to Jimmy Carter telling him how insensitive and horrible he was to be interviewed by the same magazine. Because you don't have a double standard going, do you kwassa?
katemary
(26 posts)Why do something that could be seen as inflamatory. What did he gain? The christians weren't suddenly going to see the light after a good wank and the atheists weren't going to become more atheist just bacause he was surrounded by breasts! At the same time women were going to say why? What does that say about us. And RD is no PZ Myers who has the balls to admit something is up!
If RD really thinks playboys attitude to women is fine, than would he be happy to publish naked pictures of his wife and daughter for the world to comment on? Or does he want more for them?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I await your vitriol directed at him.
katemary
(26 posts)No this is about sexism. I haven't believed in anything for years. I haven't had much truck with religion for years. But when I decided to become more proactive as an atheist I was horrified by the casual sexism.
What exactly is the ratio of male to female contributing atheists? How many of the contributing females are bored and disappointed when things deteriorate into the same tired old boring look at the tits on that atheist women. Fed up with being sexualised and fitted into narrow 'how shaggable are they' boxes?
I went on to the RD forum two years ago and left for the reasons I've detailed in my first post. Could you comment on that please and detail why they are ok? And then rethink Dawkins appearance in a sexist magazine?
And went on the RD forum again shortly after finding out Dawkins had appeared in playboy to find that many criticisms of his appearance were removed shortly after being posted.
Just cos the catholic/Islamic/evangelical church is sexist doesn't mean atheism isn't by virtue of not having a deity! That ain't how things work.
It seriously needs to sort itself out and Dawkins needs to come down out of his ivory tower with his simplistic atheism is good and religion bad thing and stop atheism showing as much contempt for women as religion as traditionally done. Otherwise how the hell is it more enlightened and different? It'll just be religion minus a deity!
trotsky
(49,533 posts)If you think Dawkins' message is just "atheism is good and religion bad," then you don't know a damn thing about Dawkins. Try reading one of his books.
The rest of your post is just rage and bluster. Yes, there's sexism. Some humans are sexist. Some theists are sexist. Some atheists are sexist. Your rage seems directed just at atheists for some reason.
By the way, this particular statement of yours:
Just cos the catholic/Islamic/evangelical church is sexist doesn't mean atheism isn't by virtue of not having a deity!
Uh, no one said that. So I guess you're yelling at a straw man, unless you can provide a link showing someone made that claim.
katemary
(26 posts)Get real. I've read a lot of Dawkins books. In the god delusion he praises the feminist movement for raising consciousness. I admired him hugely till recently. If he did something racist or homophobic would you have been as forgiving?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)you need to direct the same outrage toward Jimmy Carter for being interviewed by the same magazine.
katemary
(26 posts)He isn't so why the hell are you bringing him up.. Richard Dawkins is.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)When Jimmy Carter gave the interview, he was the Democratic candidate for president. Shortly after he gave the interview, he BECAME president. Hard to get much more influence than that. Strike one for you.
Today, Jimmy Carter is still a player on the world stage improving the lives of many, through the Carter Center, Habitat for Humanity, and his ceaseless efforts with the UN. Strike two for you.
Want to swing again, or just give up now?
You better start throwing your rage at President Carter now.
katemary
(26 posts)What has any of that to do with Richard Dawkins being interviewed in 2012?
In the 70s/80s attitudes were different - would he give the interview now is a more pertinent point!!!.
Now answer some of my points and stop going on about Jimmy Carter.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)is, well, I'm not exactly sure. But clearly you think it was VERY VERY BAD. But you won't say why it was bad for him, but not for anyone else, including former President Carter. "Times were different" back then? Yeah, society was even more hostile toward gays, blacks, and women. One might argue that if granting Playboy an interview is somehow strengthening or supporting sexism, then Jimmy Carter did MORE damage than Richard Dawkins could ever hope to.
Get a consistent position and we'll discuss your points.
katemary
(26 posts)I really don't understand this argument at all. Attitudes were different yes! It was more hostile to blacks, gays and women. It has improved - people are more enlightened now.
I suspect many tolerant and decent people who were not racist or homophobic would have used language about gay people and ethnic minorities then that they would never dream of using now - without realising it hurt. They'd happily watch shows like the black and white minstrels without ever dreaming it was racist then. Thats why we have consciousness raising. Now they would be horrified at what they didn't realise was wrong then.
So things have moved on but playboy hasn't. It is still hostile to women. It still does not like women as people. It still portrays the attitude that women should know their place as sex objects. It is, after all, owned by a very elderly man who pays girls young enough to be his granddaughters to act a submissive and child like role for him for starters.
I doubt very much that Jimmy Carter would give that interview now. I think he would now see it as a long past its sell by date anachronism.
Now I've just listed my points elsewhere. Points that I've held consistently throughout this thread. And I have yet again responded to your Jimmy Carter point. So can you please point out where my view has changed and answer the points I've made? Or not?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)but you don't know. And more importantly, it doesn't matter, because he DID.
Now let's consolidate this into one subthread, shall we? Go to post 126.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)interviews, but whether this was a good choice for this person at this time vis a vis the movement's relationship with women.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)So now it's just a matter of timing. When would have been a good time?
Should Bill Gates have declined giving an interview due to sexism in the IT industry? It's a field overwhelmingly dominated by men.
The country as a whole was struggling mightily with sexism in the 1970s (and still is today) - was it a bad idea for Jimmy Carter to grant Playboy an interview? (I'd argue yes, but for completely different reasons.)
Just wondering when you will give your permission for an atheist to speak in a major publication. Your silence will be taken as a answer of "Never."
katemary
(26 posts)As for a major publication? Is it? I don't know anyone that knew it did interviews between the naked women.
If RD thinks playboy is ok why not magazines considered mildly homophobic(try the Tory party or the tea party or Republicans I'm sure they'll have something Dawkins could appear in). Whats a few offended gay people and their human right to be depicted as functioning human beings with brains rather than crude stereotypes compared to gripping interviews with interesting interviewees after all.
Thing is I would hope that no atheist would ever dream of exhibiting racist or homophobic behaviour and if told by, for example, a gay man/woman that they felt their actions were homophobic they'd be mortified and take it on board. Yet if a woman tells someone their behaviour is sexist and their figurehead was unwise to appear in a magazine that shows a narrow, submissive, passive, plastic toy view of women then shes a prude, with issues about nudity and sex and and a massive chip on her shoulder just there to spoil your fun. In short men know better what she should be thinking! That is sexist.
And for the record, before I'm accused of man hating and prudery, playboy isn't about sex or even interesting porn. Its about passive docile ever ready women.
If women are seeing RDs attitude as sexist and appearing in playboy as a sexist act in the light of that don't you think RD ought to listen and act? His appearing in playboy was almost inflamatory. It looked like it was designed to show women their place after they challenged him in the past - a sort of I'll teach you who knows whats best for you act. It compounded the image he is getting of an out of touch, elderly privileged male in a ivory tower who is contemptous of women.
If atheism is to change/improve anything it has to treat ALL people as equals and judge by contribution not cup size - and that is not the playboy image where women ARE just their cup size. If that means listening to women when they tell you something is not acceptable so be it. If atheism doesn't listen and present a different more equal and enlightened view to the world what is the point of it?
If RD cannot see that then I'd question the way he is almost venerated by fellow atheists cos he'd rather tear the movement apart rather than admit he's ever in the wrong. It was a stupid act and gained nothing but lost a lot.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)He too was interviewed by Playboy. He must have betrayed all Democrats and all women when he did that, by your logic.
I do not see any signal in your behavior here that you are interested in an actual dialog, but only to bash and scream. Count me out.
katemary
(26 posts)Thing is I'm in the UK so whilst aware of your politics really don't think I'm in a position to comment. Can you respond to actual points rather than accusing me of bashing and screaming then there might actually be a dialogue.
In what way is playboys depiction of women as passive submissive airbrushed objects not sexist?
What actual justification does RD have for doing an interview in playboy?
What did he actually gain?
What did he lose?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)OK for Jimmy Carter, not OK for Richard Dawkins.
Then there can be a dialog. Otherwise you're just bashing and screaming about Richard Dawkins.
katemary
(26 posts)No double standard. Nobody in a position of influence should even think it right to appear. Satisfied?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Because this entire thread you've been attacking Richard Dawkins for something that now you admit is wrong for anybody to do. Why are you singling him out?
katemary
(26 posts)Read my posts. I have been consistent. If Richard Dawkins could take his head out of his bum and think he'd be fantastic. I think this stems as much from arrogance on his part as blatant sexism but who knows.
You do know that any links to RDs sexist outbursts and any hints at all that women may think him sexist are removed straight away from his site. In the UK hardly anyone knows about his sexist attitudes. So he is not keen on an open discussion or on telling us why he appeared at all.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Who do you think is doing more harm with their attitude toward women:
A) Richard Dawkins
B) The Pope
C) Mitt Romney
Go to Post 126 to answer, please.
katemary
(26 posts)Thats is like saying minor racism that just makes people feel uncomfortable and less than equal is ok as long as you're not lynching them. Or a few homophobic digs that make it gay folk uncomfortable are ok as long as you're not beathing them up. The other two being far worse does not make Dawkins good. So that is an inane comment.
Wasn't that the basis of Dawkins' take on Rebecca Watson. You're not in Afghanistan so stop being scared of rape or bitching about equal pay or......Stop trying to improve things cos others are worse off. What kind of an argument is that exactly?
'You're nowhere near as bad as Romney or the pope' is hardly a huge compliment. Not really something thats difficult to aspire to is it?
But I'll put this to you - none of the above appear to like women as people who have opinions. All of the above have clearly defined narrow roles that women should fall into. For Dawkins we should accept what he says we should be and be happy to be sexualised and marginalised or we can be victims or religion. Look at my first post, it detailed the representations of women on his website. NO strong women there at all.
Romney is just insane and we're living in terror over here that he may actually get elected. Real horror.
And this issue is about whether Dawkins is sexist to appear in playboy not about him in relation to people that are far worse.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Some guys are acting like idiots on the Dawkins forums, and so you think Dawkins is responsible because he was interviewed by Playboy.
Never mind there is far worse sexism in REAL LIFE, or that far more important (and influential) people have been interviewed by Playboy, this is your crusade, and you're not really interested in combating sexism, you just want to bash Dawkins. Well, and bash anyone who doesn't jump on board with your jihad as part of the problem, making plentiful use of straw man arguments to tear them down.
For the record, at no point have I ever stated that any amount of sexism is OK - I've been trying, desperately, to get you to explain why your agenda is focused on Richard Dawkins and non-believers. Now I see, it's personal. Well good luck with your crusade, I'm tired of being personally bashed by you and the straw man arguments you have been attributing to me. If this is how you treat others, I'm going to guess you won't be winning over many allies.
katemary
(26 posts)The people on his website were blatantly sexist - the moderators did nothing. That is his website. Read my original first post listing a fraction of the sexist posts that went unmoderated. Women have one role only - as victims of religion. Victims of anything else no. Strong women - no.
A load of the women there took them to task over the sexism - the thread was closed after a while.
Then there was elevatorgate. Any mention of which is banned on the RD site. At least three people now have referred to it and linked to the fact that the US atheists seem to be aware of sexism and trying to tackle it. Every single one has been removed by the moderators. Alongside anything that isn't completely complimentary. So it is not as if the moderators are particularly reluctant to remove posts or deal with issues.
Then on top of that he appears in playboy. A mistake possibly under other circumstances. Deliberately inflammatory or designed to show his macho strength under the current ones?
The best description I've heard of Dawkins now is that he is the George W Bush of the atheist movement. And it suits.
Give me one good reason why I'd bash Richard Dawkins for sexism and being egotistical if I didn't think he was?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Your logic is appalling. You still haven't shown how Dawkins being interviewed by Playboy could have had any effect on the behavior you claim to have observed. Dr. Martin Luther King was interviewed by Playboy. Do you blame him for sexism in the black community?
Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Keith Olbermann were all interviewed by Playboy in recent years. By your logic, that makes them sexist and also responsible for sexism. I eagerly await your diatribes against them, too.
Oh and Tina Fey was also. Should be interesting to see you squirm on that one.
By the way, female nudity is found openly displayed on newsstands and on primetime TV in Europe. Is Richard Dawkins responsible for that too?
Thanks, by the way, for not using a straw man argument this time.
katemary
(26 posts)I would say that RD is supposed to be a role model/figurehead for atheism.
I would say as this interview was about atheism he was acting in that role and therefore representing atheism as a concept.
I would say atheism 'should' have a more enlightened attitude to the role of women than religion.
I would say that Playboy does NOT have an enlightened view of the role of women in society.
I would say it has an view of the role of women not that far removed from that of religion ie submissive and passive and existing solely to service men. That is how they are presented after all!
I think as a figurehead he has opened up the atheist movement to accusations of hypocrisy every time it comments on the attitudes of say the religious right to women. As playboy also has a narrow definition or women and an equally exploited role for them. Its just a naked role rather baking one.
And I am well aware that in stating that I will leave myself open to accusations of prudery and being part of the religious right but at the end of the day playboy is not about sex as pleasureable activity for two people its an outdated view of woman as submissive, passive dollies who are there purely for men. If it were about equalality and sex there would be equal numbers of fit, naked, toned men in it.
So I don't respect anyone that appears but some interviewees are more culpable/hypocritical for appearing than others.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)like the proverbial chess-playing pigeon.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Surely you did not mean to call this new member a schizophrenic?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)"Word salad is a mixture of random words that, while arranged in phrases that appear to give them meaning, actually carry no significance. The words may or may not be grammatically correct, but the meaning is hopelessly confused."
There is nothing that says using the term means one MUST be referring to schizophrenics. Your insinuation is out of place and inappropriate.
katemary
(26 posts)And not a single one of the people defending RD has adressed any of the points raised. You've all just gone off on a rant. Ask yourselves why you cannot address the points actually raised?.
Atheism shouldn't have sacrad cows. From the responses here it would appear RD is becoming a sacred cow. If he'd thought things through or not reacted so vehemently in the past he'd be a much better spokesperson. And if you addressed the issues instead of throwing out insults perhaps there would be a dialogue.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)So far, all you've done here is ceaselessly bash one individual for doing an interview with a magazine, while conveniently ignoring all the other people (including prominent liberals) who have given an interview to the same magazine.
Richard Dawkins isn't a sacred cow. I know of no atheist who agrees with everything he says. So you should also dispense with the lousy straw man arguments. That would really help your case too.
I'm not sure what exactly your agenda here is other than bashing Richard Dawkins and anyone who doesn't agree with you that he needs to be bashed intensely. That's why you aren't getting a dialog.
katemary
(26 posts)Nobody has answered that yet. And yes I do think he is a liability to atheism now -when did I deny that? He does seem to hold women in contempt. I sincerely hope he will deal with that and remedy it as he has done many good things.
Or maybe you think women aren't necessary or important enough to be part of the movement. Which is your perogative. But they can get that crap anywhere so why bother supporting this movement if its no change for them?
Instead of waffling and screaming like a banshee can you state why you think some people shouldn't be allowed to hold the opinon that playboy is sexist?
Then answer do you think it would have been ok for him to appear in a magazine that gay people found homophobic? Even if you didn't agree with them necessarily. Or racist? Why is a magazine that some people find sexist for good reason considered different. Is it because they are women?.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)What did anyone else gain? You're moving the goalposts again. Get a consistent position and we can discuss. Right now it's like nailing jello to the wall.
And for the record, I never once said that "some people shouldn't be allowed to hold the opinon that playboy is sexist." Stop putting words in my mouth, it's dishonest and indicates you have nothing to discuss.
katemary
(26 posts)I'm not quite sure why you think my position is inconsistent.
I have consistently said the magazine is sexist. You haven't disagreed.
I have consistently said the magazine shows a one dimenstional view of women as passive, submissive sex objects composed solely of breasts and bums (not quite sure what the language guidelines are here - so sorry if that sounds twee). You haven't disagreed.
I've consistently said that atheism should be above such narrow definitions of women - it should treat them as it treats men - who are not defined solely by the length, girth and staying power of their willies (which is, lets face it, what the male equivalent would be should women wish to treat men as they are treated). Men are rarely portrayed in any magazine bending over wearing nothing but a come hither face are they!. Playboy defines men by what they do! Hard to tell from your responses whether you've disagreed or not.
I'm consistent in my belief that those images damage all women - who are then often treated as if they to should only aspire to being passive breasts. You've not replied.
I've consistently said that narrow images of women are the preserve of the extreme fringes of religion. You've not given a coherent response.
I've consistently said that RD showed contempt for women when he appeared in a magazine that presents women as objects. You disagree but haven't said why other than refer to others who also appeared which is not really relevant as it is RD and atheisms take on women we're discussing.
I've consistently said that in that interview he was representing the atheist voice. You haven't disagreed.
I've asked on several ocassions would you be happy for him to appear in a homophobic magazine. You haven't answered.
And I've stated that it is pointless to go on about what Jimmy Carter did in the past when attitudes to women were more backward and that the real question would be would he appear in playboy now! You haven't given a coherent response to that.
And yet you keep accusing me of inconsistency. Can you explain why? And can you address the points made instead of the ones you'd like me to have made to fit your stock answer. You really don't seem to have any arguments in response to my actual points.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)a consistent position on what exactly you're so worked up about.
Is it the fact that a (somewhat) prominent public figure was interviewed by Playboy? No, because you don't have the same reaction for all the other people who fit that category - even those with much greater prominence, as I established with my Jimmy Carter. I can't get a straightforward answer from you about exactly what it is you're arguing.
If it's simply that you believe Playboy is a sexist magazine, then you should start a thread in GD because that's not a religious topic.
The only thing I've been able to figure out is that you're mad at Richard Dawkins ALONE for granting Playboy an interview, because you somehow think this makes all atheists around the world become more sexist.
If so, you haven't supported any of that with facts. You're just yelling and trying to bully anyone who doesn't agree with you.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts) katemary
(26 posts)The fact you do not seem to be able to respond to any of the actual points speaks volumes!
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)
dimbear
(6,271 posts)Give yourself full credit if you got that one.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)We have had quite a few very hot discussions about the role of sexism in the developing organized atheist/humanist/secularist movement, and I welcome your input.
There has been a significant denial that this is a problem, despite growing evidence to the contrary. It appears to be an issue that should be addressed now before it becomes a carbuncle.
katemary
(26 posts)As I said my first introduction to the Richard Dawkins foundation website was a place riddled with casual sexism uncontrolled by the moderators. So I walked away for a while.
I didn't know he'd appeared in playboy and only found out about the other stuff subsequently. But it does need to be addressed or it will make the movement just like religion without magic. And it would appear that Richard Dawkins is very out of touch or just too arrogant to admit to mistakes or to try and address it himself. I know several women who've walked away from it as a movement saying its just an old boys club. They won't really come back.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)We have a number of members who revere Dawkins and are in complete denial about the issues of sexism which are swirling around organized atheism/secularism/humanism. For all their talk of *Christian privilege*, they have a great deal of trouble recognizing their own.
At any rate, I am an advocate of these groups in general and sincerely hope that they recognize and deal with any *ism* issues that may arise and deal with them early on before they become normalized. It is not unusual for organizations founded by older (or even younger) white men to become dominated by them, and they are unlikely to step back gracefully.
Welcome again. I hope you stick around.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I like Dawkins. Like him a lot. But I, and others, have made it clear that he isn't the leader of atheism. He isn't our pope. He's just a highly visible person who is atheist. I think he has said some things about women that are very troubling and that I do not support him on.
And I would like to see the posts from "a number of members" who are "in complete denial about the issues of sexism" in atheism. Because that's complete bullshit. What we have made clear is that 1. yes, there are sexists assholes that are atheist; 2. that has nothing to do with, nor does it stem from, their atheism; 3. sexism in the atheist community PALES in comparison to the rampant sexism in current religious organizations with the RCC being the most obvious and visible.
katemary
(26 posts)Atheism should be above sexism and those refusing to acknowledge it are deluding themselves yes. But there does seem to be a lot of denial here that playboy is a sexist magazine. And that Dawkins was wrong to appear for that reason. Why?
That doesn't mean it should be banned or anyone here should stop reading it they just need to see it for what it is and stop pretending it is some kind of liberal woman loving publication. After all men aren't portrayed anywhere at all bending over or stroking their willies whilst wearing nothing but a dozy smile. Dawkins wasn't naked or sexualised in the magazine.
Refusing to acknowledge that women don't like it is in itself sexist. Telling us what we can and can't like and what should and shouldn't offend us rather than acknowledging the points raised is sexist. It is saying I know better than you what you should like.
There is complete denial of RDs and other atheists sexism in the UK. It is not allowed in discussion and they refuse point blank to even acknowledge it on his website. In the UK he is about the only high profile atheist we have. Possibly cos we haven't had the problems with religion you guys have had.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Anywhere? At all? I don't think that's a true statement. And you are either lying or live under a rock. Neither option bodes well for me taking anything you write seriously.
And the point is not what is happening in your part of the UK (where they apparently don't have pictures of naked men). The point I am making is that you came HERE on DU to tell US that ATHEISTS (note you didn't say "some" or "UK atheists" or anything else to limit your statement) are ignoring the issue. That is patently untrue for the atheists here.
katemary
(26 posts)Ok sorry about not specifying UK atheists. Yes there are other sexist atheists and yes you do seem to be addressing it here. But in the UK our only high profile atheist is Dawkins, he gets wheeled out whenever there is a religious programme and does our only atheist programmes. Probably because we don't have your problems with a religious right but more likely because he has the biggest mouth and ego.
In the UK we are led to believe, rightly or wrongly, that Dawkins has single handedly rescued the USA from the grip of the religious right, the RC church and Islam!! That single handedly he has given you all a freedom to become atheists that we can only assume you didn't have before but we did. I doubt that idea very much but that is what we are fed.
So if you have it sorted here, perhaps your high profile atheists, like PZ Myers could sort it with Dawkins in the UK. Cos it is a forbidden subject there believe me. The minute any hints of sexism are mentioned in the UK they are removed. Please help us in the UK.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Do you have any documentation to back them up? If not, you've been very irresponsible and insulting indeed.
katemary
(26 posts)I hadn't believed in anything for years but hadn't really bothered to do anything much. In the UK religion and atheism aren't the issues they are in the USA I'm learning. We tend not to care too much.
I work in education which is by its nature not sexist and very careful. So my first trip to the RD site, after we started getting some nutty creationists coming over and trying to get into our schools, was a revelation in casual, unrestrained sexism. And on his site he is revered. All hints of what is going on here is removed almost straight away. And all links to any criticisms of him.
I started out thinking that like everyone he was human and would make mistakes. I thought like the rest of us he would acknowledge and try and correct them. I thought he'd be mortified by accusations of sexism. I would if I was inadvertantly racist or homophobic -and would do my best to rectify it. We all make mistakes after all. I am horrified to find that only does he not do that, he seems to deliberately aim to inflame things more.
In isolation the playboy interview would have been a mistake but possibly an honest one. He is of a different generation after all, when men were more unenlightened. But in conjunction with everything else and the sexism he'd already been accused of and ignored it looks like a deliberate attempt to tell women to know their places and not to dare to criticise!! His UK site is now a very boring, bland place to compliment him on his tv shows. No criticism allowed. That is a dangerous place for anyone!!
cbayer
(146,218 posts)and the preponderance of older, white, highly educated men set a tone that it is not too late to address and change.
But the denial has to be addressed first.
I was in a large organization for years and encountered much of the same thing. It became worse as I began to achieve positions of leadership. While I hope that I and the other women who stayed made some difference, the bottom line is that this organization is almost completely devoid of women and does not represent the demographics of the profession at all. Women just didn't feel welcome, comfortable or even safe at times.
That's the risk here. If the problem is ignored, swept under the carpet and the women who are ringing the alarm bells shunned (or worse), it will not be addressed and resolved.
Anyway, very glad you have weighed in with your personal perspective and experience.
katemary
(26 posts)Before going into teaching I worked in a male dominated environment as well. I remember comments about my appearance being more 'normal' than they should have been. I was lucky that most of the time I wore a lab coat.
I think lots of women are just walking away. Two years ago on the RD site it blew up and all the women pointed to the blatant sexism allowed through by the moderators. It was one of the longest threads till it was locked. Most of the women disappeared after that - it just seemed pointless to keep arguing. And more will disappear if it just becomes an old boys club again.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Well it's not for them, now is it?
Is "Cat Fancy" exploiting cats and their owners?
It's a men's mag. The women are only exploited if they are somehow coerced or tricked into posing.
Both exhibitionists and voyeurs exist. They are not evil or sick, most of them.
katemary
(26 posts)Cats are cute or pretty after all, but we wouldn't let them run the accounts dept or work in a lab would we. Cos their pretty little heads aren't up to it and they only need to be decorative and fluffy to get fed.
Anyway yes - those women may have chosen very short careers as one dimensional, passive, submissive doormats for men. Men they wouldn't touch with a bargepole in reality. But they don't really suffer for that choice, its women with more about them that do. If they are shaping their readers attitude to women, even partially, it harms all women.
The more men read magazines like playboy the more they see women through that filter -as objects or toys rather than co workers or people with opinions. A fact which is obvious - those men then go on to sexualise women outside of the playboy context. Like on atheist forums or at work. Read my first post if you don't believe that and justify the things I saw on the RD forum.
It is so ingrained they don't even know they are doing it half the time.
If atheism is for all human beings why appear in a mag that presents one dimensional passive submissive women as sex objects for men? Why appear in a magazine that depicts women as objects? Women as objects should be an anachronism. It should be the preserve of religion. Richard Dawkins should have thought.
Can you answer those questions because I've heard all the tired cliches folk are coming out with here many times before.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)But you just wanted an opportunity to broad brush a group of people, so don't mind me.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Nice people, with a really bad superiority complex. I don't care for the term at all.
Rob H.
(5,849 posts)and I'm an atheist. I wish they had chosen, well, anything else.
Ian David
(69,059 posts)The implication being that they are brighter than Theists, but that Theists aren't necessarily dim.
It's still arrogant, yet not ENTIRELY dismissive.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)What I actually like to call myself is a skeptic, which if you think about it is actually a STRONGER term than atheist.
After all, you can be an atheist and believe in alien abductions and the power of pyramids. Not so if you're a skeptic.
Skeptics ⊂ Atheists.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)dmallind
(10,437 posts)I was there when they launched the "Brights" campaign. They went to great lengths to point out that this was nothing to do with the usage of the term to connote intelligence.
Most people warned them it would be taken that way. It was.