Home > Uncategorized > Cleaning it off is a lifetime’s work

Cleaning it off is a lifetime’s work

July 7, 2011

You know what a “cult of personality” is? It’s when your hero can do no wrong; when the great leader becomes more important than the ideas he or she is offering.

Most religions are cults of personality. God says don’t kill, for example, but he can order the Israelites to murder all the Midianites and it’s OK. Some political leaders have cults of personality, like Michele Bachmann. She can say any damn thing at all and her followers will right away start working on why that was OK for her to say that.

Fundamentalists love to diss atheism by claiming it’s a religion, which is kind of funny in itself. And quite naturally they’re looking for the personality of which atheism is a cult. Carl Sagan, maybe, or Christopher Hitchins or Richard Dawkins. These are all admired figures, so AHA! It’s a religion!

Not quite, and a recent Internet kerfluffle illustrates why.

Picture an Atheist conference in Dublin with a bunch of Skeptics talking about science-y stuff, and one of the awesome SkepChicks named Rebecca Watson had given a video review of the conference and her role in it. During the conference she mostly had a wonderful time, except for when some guy hit on her in an elevator – at 4am no less – and she uses the incident as an example to say more or less “Guys, word to the wise, that’s creepy, don’t do it.” (4:30 in the video).

Fellows, that is absolutely sound advice. If you don’t know why it’s creepy to hit on a woman at 4:00 in the morning after following her into a soundproof steel box, I just don’t know what to do with you. But a lot of guys who saw the video responded with mocking messages, and even threats, which pretty much proved her point that the atheist community has some consciousness-raising to do in its own ranks.

Enter Richard Dawkins, widely-admired atheist leader. He’s a brilliant author, a popularizer of science and atheism, and even a champion of women’s rights. And he was at the conference and heard Watson’s talk. So you’d expect him to shake his head and offer some clever Britticism about how rude/sub-textually threatening the guy was, right?

Nope: he completely dismissed the idea that the guy hitting on her in that setting was either sexist or threatening, in the most condescending language possible. He posited a hypothetical Muslim women who had been mutilated, raped, and persecuted as a reason why Rebecca Watson’s experience didn’t matter. Really.  Reading the comment you can almost hear him cramming his privileged academic foot into his mouth.

Never mind that Watson didn’t in any way compare her discomfiture in the elevator to the persecution of women in Islamist lands – he went there in her stead. It’s an amazingly tone-deaf response. Somewhat less surprisingly, he found himself in the middle of a well-deserved Internet Shitstorm, to which he has not, as of this writing, satisfactorily responded.

A few people defended him – possibly the same ones who wrote other condescending and even threatening responses to Watson. But many more condemned him on no uncertain terms. Some even went so far as to say; “I’m not buying or recommending his books anymore.”

That’s not a cult-of-personality response. Clearly, a popular atheist leader can step in it big time and have a big job cleaning it off. And that’s exactly as it should be: there’s no infallible throne in atheism, skepticism, or Humanism.

I hope Dawkins will apologize, and change his ways and tune. But if there’s anything to learn from this whole event (beyond respecting women’s dignity, personal space and safety), it’s this: your hero in whatever field is just an ordinary person who happens to have gone far in one thing. Martin Luther King was apparently not a model husband. Ghandi had some rather weird obsessions. And Richard Dawkins is still a brilliant author, if a bit tarnished.

And a common theme is that many of our heroes’ faults revolve around gender and sex issues. It seems to be part of being human and living in a screwed-up society. Most of us could live two lifetimes and never get it quite right – and a couple more might not help. Because even when we know better, sometimes we just say stupid or wrong things. Have you never watched your own words escaping? while another part of your brain is screaming; “SHut up! Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!” I wonder if even the “elevator guy” is trying to figure out how to apologize without making it worse.

Don’t worry, atheist community; we’re in no danger of having any perfect leaders. Don’t defend wrong things or make excuses for them. Be ready to call them on it when it’s all over their shoes. Be glad they’re only human; the other kind are much more trouble in the long run.

NOTES:

  • I edited the last paragraph a bit for clarity the morning after writing this post.  The last sentence originally read; “Just remember yourself when you do.” But when I woke up I realized the meaning was a bit obscure, which I guess is sort of an example in itself.
Categories: Uncategorized
  1. July 8, 2011 at 17:44 | #1

    I read this post yesterday and I’ve been thinking about it off and on ever since. How disappointing that Dawkins missed the boat on that one. I suppose brilliance does not guarantee empathy.

    Very interesting and thought-provoking post.

  2. July 9, 2011 at 01:10 | #2

    If you don’t know why it’s creepy to hit on a woman at 4:00 in the morning after following her into a soundproof steel box, I just don’t know what to do with you.

    Having been a young man in his twenties once upon a time, I can say there are points in one’s life when one doesn’t know things like this. It’s not innate knowledge – you have to either work it out by seeing things from another person’s point of view or having an instructional experience of your own.

    we’re in no danger of having any perfect leaders. Don’t defend wrong things or make excuses for them.

    Good advice for any community, actually. That’s why I left the first bit off. It’s the difference between being a group of people who have a common interest, and a cult of personality.

    Speaking of which, Dawkins was wrong here. I don’t want to try to guess why. Yes, some women have it worse than the average Western woman does, but so what? If you become a victim, it doesn’t matter terribly much what the average is.

    • July 9, 2011 at 05:28 | #3

      I agree with Cujo that a lot of what seems obvious isn’t obvious when you’re young, inexperienced, and possibly tired to the point of not thinking things through. I don’t think that excuses his behavior. The man did the wrong thing. So far as I’ve gathered, he was callous, foolish, and creepy. But I would guess a learning mistake, and not idiocy.

      Yet, I think the woman’s response — including her alarm — was justified because she had no way of knowing his intentions, she was in a vulnerable position, and woman are all but routinely assaulted, molested, and raped in our society.

      To me, it’s inexcusable that anyone would criticize her for her behavior. Dawkins included.

  3. dof
    July 9, 2011 at 07:40 | #4

    Having been a young man in his twenties once upon a time, I can say there are points in one’s life when one doesn’t know things like this. It’s not innate knowledge – you have to either work it out by seeing things from another person’s point of view or having an instructional experience of your own.

    Sure – and I’m not talking about Elevator Guy here. He made a clumsy pass, she said no, he backed off, and she spent about one minute in the video making an appropriate semi-humorous instructional experience for guys about it. And contrary to many responses that came later from others, she never even implied he was dangerous in any way, only that the setting wasn’t comfortable enough for a personal overture to be effective.

    It’s the responses that came later that I’m talking about. People who couldn’t, even with the benefit of hindsight and reflection, see that RW was dispensing quite valuable advice. And that some of them made downright threatening responses, calling her a feminist bitch and suggesting she should be raped.

    And then… Richard Dawkins’ response, which was truly in WTF territory. My point was quite tangential to RW’s elevator kerfluffle; namely that even though atheist leaders like Dawkins are generally admired and respected, they are perceived as fallible and capable of wrong. His readers (“followers” doesn’t sound quite right in the atheist context) make up their own minds. As you say, it’s good advice for any community. Religions are a cult of divine personality, but they all too often become cults of terrestrial personality as well.

  4. July 9, 2011 at 08:25 | #5

    To get back to your real point, George, it’s a good one. Atheists are not responding to this in any way like Dawkins is sacred. Not even good friends of his like PZ Meyers are supporting him in this matter. And if a man can’t get his friends and allies to blindly follow him, just what kind of sacred cow is he?

  5. dof
    July 9, 2011 at 10:16 | #6

    Les Jenkins says sacred cows make the best hamburger… FWIW.

  6. July 9, 2011 at 20:40 | #7

    Ophelia Benson had an interesting take on this, as did one of her commenters, one Bruce S. Springsteen. She thinks it wasn’t so much Rebecca Watson’s initial statement that was what Dawkins was reacting to, but all the subsequent hoopla. “Srpingsteen’s” (I have no idea if that’s his real name or not, but he’s posted there before) comment mentioned something I’ve wondered about, which is that Dawkins’ cultural upbringing probably makes him less tolerant of “gossipy” subjects.

Comments are closed.