Richard Dawkins is a Colossal Douche

5 min read

Deviation Actions

Yeah. I said it. I'm not taking it back. For freakin' anything.

The Pope is saying more tolerant things than Richard Dawkins does lately. He's become this rather sexist, anti-Islamic JACKASS.

And this isn't me just pulling stuff out of my ass. This is stuff taken directly from what HE HIMSELF HAS SAID.

Why the sexism bit? Why the Anti-Islamic jab?

Well, in 2011, Rebecca Watson, who runs the blog "Skepchick", posted a video after sitting on a panel with Richard Dawkins, among other people, at a skeptics' conference. Watson talks about addressing a pretty common subject for women in the skeptic and atheist community — sexism, which she spoke about at a panel discussion. In the video, she briefly, and calmly, describes an encounter with a (male) in an elevator after the panel, during which she was asked back to his hotel room "for coffee." Richard Dawkins himself decided to weigh in on her video in the comments section of a separate blog post by PZ Meyers on Watson's experience (The original post is no longer available, but the New Statesmen preserved the entire spat). Here's Dawkins.

Dear Muslima

Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don't tell me yet again, I know you aren't allowed to drive a car, and you can't leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you'll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.

Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep"chick", and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn't lay a finger on her, but even so . . .

And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.


NO, I don't know why Dawkins decided to bring Islam into a debate over sexism in the atheist community, but there you go. And NO, most Muslims don't do that to women, so it's a stereotype and as offensive as saying all Black people enjoy watermelon or all Southern people have bad teeth and are stupid or that all atheists are smug, pretentious jerks. And in case you thought he'd apologize when asked to clarify, Dawkins issued a follow-up:

"...She was probably offended to about the same extent as I am offended if a man gets into an elevator with me chewing gum. But he does me no physical damage and I simply grin and bear it until either I or he gets out of the elevator. It would be different if he physically attacked me.

Muslim women suffer physically from misogyny, their lives are substantially damaged by religiously inspired misogyny. Not just words, real deeds, painful, physical deeds, physical privations, legally sanctioned demeanings."

...look. The issue the woman had was a guy coming onto her and pretty much asking her to sleep with him despite her not even KNOWING him. It was just a case of "Tonight. You", to her. Now if Dawkins had wanted to say "I know "coffee" is a powerful code word for sex, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar", that would have been FINE. Instead, he behaved CHILDISHLY and insultingly.

As for the anti-Islamic stuff...well, this is a tweet. Note the timestamp.

All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though. 10:04 AM - 8 Aug 2013

That's from DICK'S own twitter account. He's also called  Islam "One of the great evils in the world."  AND he also wrote THIS on his Twitter account: "Of course you can have an opinion about Islam without having read Qur'an. You don't have to read Mein Kampf to have an opinion about nazism."


...y'know...Bill O'Reilly once made a comparison of the Koran to Mein Kampf. And then lied about the fact that he did. Congratulations, Richard. You're in the same illustrious, Islamophobic club as Bill O'Reilly. And I think that Dawkins is just pissed off because he's NEVER won a Nobel Prize whatsoever according to Wikipedia. I checked. Not a one. Desmond Tutu has won more than him. Mother Teresa has one. The International Committee of the Red Cross? Founded by Gustave Moynier and Henry Dunant, both Calvinists, and they've won THREE Nobel Prizes.

Dawkins...stick to talking about SCIENCE. Because when it comes to moral and ethical don't get to make those calls. That's like letting Chris Brown sing about how much his life sucks. He, like you, DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THE HECK HE'S TALKING ABOUT.
© 2013 - 2021 SaintHeartwing
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
SpongeBobFossilPants's avatar
I think I've read that he's apologized for this. I could be wrong, though.
SaintHeartwing's avatar
VoxAdam's avatar
Richard Dawkins is a longtime supporter of women's rights, but he obviously knows regrettably little about women. And while I can see what he was going for with his sarcastic blog post, addressing it to a group of people who've been through this kind of severe mistreatment is in very poor taste and only serves to achieve the worst of both worlds in its ignorance of more subtle, casual sexism.

It's a shame this ugly side of Dawkins' character should so thoroughly undermine his public image as a thoughtful, well-spoken scholar, but then I've always felt the man has a somewhat elitist attitude beneath it all.

However, I'd like to remind you that one of Dawkins's scientific fields is ethology, the study of animal interaction and the development of an ethos in humans. So discussing morals and ethics is part of his job, regardless of how good he is at it.
SaintHeartwing's avatar
Clearly, he needs to work on a little thing called "tact".

When a chaplain has to visit someone dying in the hospital and their family is there after it, do you know what the first thing he says is? It's usually not "He's in a better place". No. He says "I'm so sorry for your loss" unless he knows for sure they're all Christians. It's because he has to understand the agony the family is going through. The pain they feel. He has to show tact and not even remotely come off as tooting God's horn.

The same goes for Dawkins. I can't believe him. He's comparing believers of a Religion to members of a COLLEGE. It's technically true that fewer Muslims (10) than Trinity College Cambridge members (32) have won Nobel prizes. But insert pretty much any other group of people instead of "Muslims", and the statement would be true. You are comparing a specialised academic institution to an arbitrarily chosen group of people. Go on. Try it. All the world's Chinese, all the world's Indians, all the world's lefthanded people, all the world's cyclists.

Secondly, if one is to try to address what Dawkins is really trying to say, that Muslims as a unit throughout history have done nothing since the Middle Ages, and that is clearly attributable to their stupid religion, then one must point out that a Nobel prize is not by any means a suitable or universal enough criterion. It has only been going for a little more than a hundred years, the prizes it awards are for excellence in academic research which is far superior in western scientific and academic institutions due to the socioeconomic development of the north, rather than due to any inherent cultural-religious deficiency in the south – which, should be pointed out, is made up not only of Muslims.

So in short...he couldn't even get this right in terms of "how to frame a rational argument". Which is the ONLY thing somebody like him should be good for.
A-hardie's avatar
I'm very upset when someone like this comes from my country, just when we were making such progress with equality too.
SaintHeartwing's avatar
We cant all be Desmond Tutu.
LazyRayFinkle's avatar
I don't mind atheists at all (hell most of my friends are atheists), but this new wave of atheist rhetoric has me baffled. It's this "be more aggressive and assertive, humiliate if necessary" way of acting. I heard plenty of that from my religious elders. We don't need it from the opposite spectrum. Neither side is helping their cause by acting this way. 
SaintHeartwing's avatar
Fundamentalism hurts everyone, no matter what side it comes from.
QueenDanny's avatar
I can't stand sexisum. my brother was a victum of that in Middle school the princibal sergated the boys & girls in the school because a parent wasn't controlling there kid whom went around kicking boys in the nuts. so they seregated everyone which caused alot of parents to be angry too my mom was one of them.

That richard Dawkins sounds like a cwertian some one. I know but my step dad was lecturing me on Muslims the other night. telling me not to trust them & stuff. I told him that there were good Muslims among the bad ones. but he is convinced that Muslims are sneaky people. & hes african american BTW. there alot of Muslim hate in my City that i live in.  a clerk in a convient store chased a Muslim man out with a gun after he walked in had a Turban on his head.  & the schools here are having to wear Uniforms & are strict with a pasific dress code & people Bitch about that. because Muslims going to school with there Hijabs is illegal in the public schools here. Bandannas are also illegal. its because when i was back in 10th grade a person was beat to crap & Hospitalized by another kid who was wearing like hats & scarves & stuff.  part of a gang. would hide weapons & knives under that stuff. & thats why schools banned them.

only private schools allow that stuff here.
But it also show the Hypocracy of man who don't like being jusdged yet judge others just the same. it why i have no respect for this world
SaintHeartwing's avatar
Yeah, he's kind of a big hypocrite.
QueenDanny's avatar
its why i don't like this generation i was from this generation
Jon-Wood's avatar
Please tell me you're not really that surprised that an avowed atheist has anti-religious prejudice, just disappointed.

The issue the woman had was a guy coming onto her and pretty much asking her to sleep with him despite her not even KNOWING him. It was just a case of "Tonight. You", to her. 

The request was prefaced with something like "don't take this the wrong way" according to Watson herself, which would indicate that the statement was not the ostensible meaning (sex), and more likely to be a literal one (coffee and conversation). Unless the "wrong way" he was referring to was the literal intent, which seems unlikely.
SaintHeartwing's avatar
It's not just that he's anti-religious, he's ASTONISHINGLY ignorant. case you think he doesn't really have anything against women and that was just a one-time thing...


And then, there's what he said again in response to Watson's comments. When he said the very same thing you said, that "Rebecca's feeling that the man's proposition was 'creepy' was her own interpretation of his behavior, presumably not his."...

Well, she responded in this way. "You don't get that because you've never been called a cunt, a faggot, a nigger, a kike. You don't have people constantly explaining that you're subhuman, or have the intellect of an animal. You don't have people saying you shouldn't have rights. You don't have people constantly sexually harassing you. You don't live in fear of rape, knowing that one wrong misinterpretation of a couple words could lead down that road.

And unfortunately, she's completely right for many women. His attempt to prove how insignificant Watson's story was by comparing it with the much worse scenario of a Muslim woman's daily life hurts his argument. The fact that something worse is going on somewhere else does not diminish whatever may be happening here. Also, as Watson points out, Dawkins is admired widely for work criticizing creationism and denouncing the use of religion as an excuse for repressing women in particular. To defend only some women from misogyny and not all, she and others argue, is hypocritical.

curiousprintery's avatar
That only makes sense if something bad really had happened to Rebecca. But it didn't. The guy asked her, she declined, nothing happened, he didn't pester her any further, didn't do anything, didn't touch her or himself, left her in peace. And no, he did NOT asked her to sleep with him. There is a time and place to be worried and cautious and in her case she overreacted somewhat. How is it misogynic to tell a woman that he is interested in spending time with her (and maybe more)?
As a woman who has experienced actual sexual harassment in a really dangerous situation (still not even a shred of the horror some women are subjected to) I quite agree with his reaction.
SaintHeartwing's avatar
It's not just what he says but HOW he says it. He has a bad habit of condescending to others.
curiousprintery's avatar
I don't mind what he said but I agree that he can be a smug bastard. ^_^ However, she made a total circus out of this absolute non-incident and did harm real feminism by practically crying wolf. Because of her one can no longer say 'I am a feminist' (as in supporting equal rights for women) without equally unreasonable and irrational men overreacting and insulting you.
RocMegamanX's avatar
YES. You mentioned the Mein Kampf bit. That's why I don't like Dawkins, and will never read The God Delusion, because(no pun intended) Holy Smoke, he sucks as a human being.

Speaking of which, have you heard Chris Brown's latest swindl--er...single, "Fine China"? Now that is a great example of someone lacking self-awareness.
SaintHeartwing's avatar
...oh yes. "Fine China". "I'm not dangerous", huh? Yeah. SURE, Chris. SURE. Thank the Lord he's getting outta music!
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In