Eyeroll du jour: Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins

Don’t have time to delve deep on uber-atheist Richard Dawkins tweeting on the ethics of abortion with no reference at all to the person in whose womb the pregnancy would be happening, thought I’d let you at it.


Pigs, Fetuses, and an Emotional Richard Dawkins by Rebecca Watson

The Rhetorical Power of Pig Pain by Ana Mardoll

As per usual, please add relevant links in comments.

Categories: culture wars, ethics & philosophy, gender & feminism, social justice

Tags: , ,

9 replies

  1. Here’s where I first read about it: http://storify.com/znikki/in-which-twitter-atheist-rallies-against-science
    Lets ignore women and talk to their husbands! That’s feminist, right? /sarcasm

  2. Sarcasm fully warranted, Pharoah Katt.
    And now Dawkins has decided to get all provocative over eugenics, conflating genetic engineering with genetic testing in IVF.

  3. And this sort of rubbish is why I find it hard to take anything Dawkins seriously. He gives atheists a bad name.

  4. Curse my propensity for half-finished blog posts! I wrote something about this, but by the time I’d done it, it had all been said. Let me just dig out some of the pithier bits, and I’ll post them here.
    In the meantime, Ana Mardoll has left some links in the comment thread of the follow-up post at Shakesville, about why it’s a bad look to be talking about women, abortion and farm animals together:

    It is not coincidental that anti-choicers compare women to livestock.
    State Rep. Terry England compares women to cows and pigs.
    ?Sen. Allen Christens compares women to roosters. ?
    Sen. Jim DeMint placed anti-choice legislation in an agriculture bill. ?
    The Illinois State House’s Agriculture and Conservation Committee passed two abortion bills.

  5. First instalment:
    As Dawkins would be the first to affirm, the world is not full of supremely rational people. The world is full of people who think things through inadequately. This means the nature of the conversation matters, not just the abstract point you might be working towards, because you know people will be taking what they can incorporate into their already-cherished world view. By disappearing women from the topic, and participating in the ‘animals’ talk, Dawkins bolsters the strand of the abortion debate that is working very hard to deny women’s humanity. Mr. Dawkins, you may call yourself pro-choice, but by doing this you’re not helping. If you don’t think it’s your job to help, then you have no right to be engaging in a conversation about morality.

  6. Nothing surprises me about Dawkins any more; he’s a complete turd. I despised him even before Elevatorgate, but he’s been scraping the bottom that proverbial barrel since then. I read about this via Pharyngula, I think.

  7. Richard Dawkins is single-handedly responsible for my refusal to identify as an atheist for many years. (which I am only just moving past by shifting from “agnostic” to “weak atheist”)

  8. Every time I read something new from Dawkins, ever since Elevatorgate, all I can think of is a movie announcer guy yelling out, “he’s still digging, folks!” Supremely disappointing behaviour from someone who is a) supposed to be a good person, b) supposed to be a good communicator, and c) supposed to be a good scientist.

  9. I’m here to fourth? fifth? the other commenters that Dawkins is doing a really good job demonstrating that the atheist movement needs feminism and social justice in general.
    (I have a fair whack of genetics and evolutionary biology training and I am bothered by some of the arguments against Dawkins in the genetic testing/genetic engineering/eugenics line, but I need time to read the arguments more carefully before I can formulate a full response.)

%d bloggers like this: