As we all know, New Atheist leaders love to bash Christians as being “anti-woman” (largely because of the abortion issue) while posturing as Defenders of Women’s Rights. Well……Amanda Marcotte recently posted a devastating analysis of the New Atheist leaders:
Many of the most prominent leaders of the New Atheism are quick to express deeply sexist ideas.
Marcotte first talks about Sam Harris:
His reaction to the criticism, which was immediate and probably a bit overwhelming was not, however, a demonstration of the tough “critical posture” he characterized as “instrinsically male.” Harris replied to his criticswith a hyper-defensive and tediously long blog post titled, “I’m Not The Sexist Pig You’re Looking For.” His strategy for disproving accusations of sexism was to engage in more sexist declarations, in the time-honored bigot strategy of saying it’s not bigotry if it’s true.
First, he warmed up with the “women are humorless” gambit, declaring his “estrogen vibe” comment a joke that simply flew over female heads. He then moved on to produce an awesome cornucopia of sexist blather….
While Oppenheimer focused on a number of prominent sexists in atheism, such as Penn Jillette and now-deceased Christopher Hitchens (who also was a fan of the “women are humorless” trope), he focused most of piece on accusations against prominent skeptic writer Michael Shermer. Oppenheimer quoted two named women accusing Shermer of sexually harassing them. A third named women had a more alarming accusation: That Shermer had taken her to his room while she was too drunk to consent to sex and had sex with her anyway….. Richard Dawkins, possibly the most famous atheist in the world, immediately went on a tear on Twitter, blaming victims for their own rapes if they were drinking. “Officer, it’s not my fault I was drunk driving. You see, somebody got me drunk,” he tweeted, comparing being forced to have sex with the choice to drive drunk.
When called out on it, he doubled down by suggesting that rape victims are the real predators, out to get men put in jail: “If you want to be in a position to testify & jail a man, don’t get drunk.”
For someone who is a supposed rationalist, Dawkins refused to even acknowledge the basic difference between making the choice to break the law and being the victim of a crime. But only for rape, of course. It’s unlikely Dawkins would think it’s your fault if you are standing there minding your own business, while drunk, and someone hits you for no reason. But if the assault occurs with a penis instead of a fist, in Dawkins’ mind, suddenly the victim is the person at fault.
Wow. I’m certainly no fan of Marcotte, but it looks to me as if she has some legitimate complaints.
But don’t forget the take home message. People like Dawkins and Marcotte agree on something – the world would be a better place without religion. However, as we watch people like Dawkins and Marcotte go for each other’s throat, and watch the atheist blogosphere freakout over and over again about these issues, it becomes clear that Dawkins and Marcotte simply share the same fantasy about a world without religion.
Also, we are left with a simple fact – the Atheists claim to be guided by reason and evidence. Yet for years now, reason and evidence have completely failed to generate a consensus among the Atheists. I think it now clear that all that huffing and puffing about being committed to Reason and Evidence is about as truthful as Neil deGrasse Tyson’s talks.