Permission to Participate: Emma Watson's UN speech and male participation in feminism

This week Emma Watson delivered what is already becoming a widely heralded speech on gender equality. Speaking in her role as a UN women's good will ambassador, she was launching the HeforShe campaign in which she extended an invition to men to participate in the feminist movement.

Of course, there will undoubtedly be some who react with cynicism to Watson's speech and her UN role more generally. Indeed, as journalist Marina Hyde has pointed out, celebrity participation in campaigns and charity can often be more distracting than helpful. However, in this case I think such cynicism is both unhelpful and unfounded.

In her speech, Watson spoke nervously but with conviction. She didn't position herself as an expert, but rather as someone who was passionate about gender equality and was using her notoriety to highlight the cause and some of the issues faced by the feminist movement. She acknowledged that many would be wondering what "this Harry Potter girl" had to do with feminism. Indeed, it goes without saying that there are historians, sociologists and gender theorists who could address the issues with more critical depth. However, what Emma Watson delivered was a speech full of truth and common sense, that due to her fame, has reached millions and has got people talking about feminism.

In particular her speech was addressing the destructive and distracting notion that feminism and misandry go hand in hand. Watson stated: "I have realized that fighting for women's rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating. If there is one thing I know for certain, it is that this has to stop. For the record, feminism by definition is: 'The belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes.'" As such she challenged men to engage in the issue also, stating: "Gender equality is your issue too".

As a self-identified feminist man, I was delighted not only by this speech's content but by the launch of the broader HeforShe campaign. It is very easy as a male proponent of gender equality to feel awkward and uncertain about what one's role in any movement should in fact be. Often male feminists never get any further than a sense of liberal guilt and in turn offer little if anything to the cause. As such, it is extremely helpful when a campaign like HeforShe comes along that provides both permission and means to participate.

Therefore, as a man and more generally as a human, I'd like to formally accept the invitation to join the feminist movement. My hope is that millions of men worldwide will do likewise.

The Downfall of Dawkins: Christians should resist the urge to score points off his latest gaffe

Another tweet, another gaffe. This was the increasingly familiar story of Richard Dawkins's week. Indeed, the renowned Evolutionary biologist turned best selling atheist author has not so much fallen from grace recently as stumbled towards ignominy, one faux pas at a time.

It began with allegations of Islamaphobia - with Dawkins taking a page out of Robert Kilroy Silk's book and questioning the extent of the Muslim world's contribution to society. Then, last month he caused outrage with a series of pointless tweets in which he devised hierarchies regarding the respective immorality of various forms of rape and child abuse. Anyone opposed to or bemused by this needless ranking system based on his moral logic 'needed to learn how to think' in Dawkins's view.

Last week's twitter debacle has perhaps been the worst yet. Asked about a hypothetical dilemma faced by a mother with a foetus with Downs Syndrome, Dawkins suggested a women should simply: 'abort it and try again'. The number of abortions carried out on foetuses with Downs Syndrome was apparent evidence of widespread support for his view.  Asked if the same treatment should be afforded those with autism, he said no on the basis that they might still be able to contribute to society. Unsurprisingly, a twitter maelstrom ensued.    

Indeed, the response to these comments and others has been interesting to observe. Notably, there have seemingly been a number of atheists shaking their heads in disbelief and embarrassment. Dawkins has gone from a popular, money-making mouthpiece to a voice many of his former supporters wish would stay silent, at least on twitter. 

Meanwhile, the reaction of many within the Church has been understandably indignant, yet depressingly opportunistic. While there has been clear and reasonable outrage from all quarters, I can't help but feel that many in the Christian camp have been rubbing their hands with glee at the potential to make hay out of Dawkins's comments. Not only have his comments provided ample license to criticise him, but many have used it as a gateway to critique 'atheist morality' more broadly. It is this that I have found somewhat troubling.

To be clear, Dawkins's comments to me seem nigh on indefensible. The notion that autistic foetuses should be aborted due to a lack of potential  societal contribution is at best a dark form of utilitarianism and at worst an advocation of eugenics. This and other comments further emphasise my view and that of many others (atheists included) that Dawkins has plenty to say about ethology but little to contribute about ethics. 

The problem lies however when Christians begin making the claim that Dawkins's own brand of Darwinian infused ethics is representative of the natural moral framework that atheism leaves you with.  Whilst I appreciate the source of this belief, It seems to me a slightly misguided appraisal. 

What removing God does do is remove a transcendent basis for objective morality. That is to say - without something or someone that goes beyond humans, our experience, our biology and our culture there are no Universal laws or guidelines about how we should behave. Atheist existentialist philosopher Jean Paul Satre summed this up perfectly: 

 "The existentialist finds it very embarrassing that God does not exist, for there disappears with him any possibility of finding values in an intelligible heaven. There can no longer be any good a priori, since there is no infinite consciousness to think it. It is nowhere written that 'the good exists, that one must be honest or must not lie, since we are now upon the plane where there are only men."

Essentially, Satre admits that without God there is no basis for objective good or bad, right or wrong. There is no divine or transcendent framework that tells us what we should or shouldn't do. 

However, in referencing Satre here a couple of key things must be noted. Firstly, the tone is one of regret, not of triumph. There is no nihilistic celebration at some notion of liberation from the shackles of a Theistically inspired morality. Instead, Satre is embarrassed that no infinite consciousness exists to institute any kind of moral law. 

Moreover, Satre's conclusion is not that moral anarchy is the only way to respond. Indeed, his conclusion still allows for good or bad, they're just not 'a priori' or transcendent or objective. The view that many naturalists hold that moral frameworks are the result of evolution and culture can still sit very comfortably within this view.

As a Christian I do believe in a sense of objective morality. I agree with CS Lewis's assertion that human experience points us to a 'moral law' which in turn nudges us towards the author of such a law. Consequently, in my own imperfect way I try to respond in obedience to this law. 

However, I know several agnostics and atheists who, broadly speaking, also find themselves attempting to follow the same code. The only difference is that they disagree with its origins. Simply denying moralities Divinely instituted objectivity does not negate its existence or application. It is equally possible to  conscientiously avoid murder whether I'm following a Biblical mandate not to kill or whether I believe such an instinct is the result of an evolutionary urge that exists to preserve the human race. Perhaps like me, you don't find these explanations mutually exclusive. 

Dawkins' moral system is not the result of merely lacking God but of replacing God. Rather than simply looking at evolution as a process that explains our origins he has used it as the basis of a moral framework. In this framework, logic and utility will always trump love and compassion. Dawkins's comments are not the natural consequence of atheism or a belief in evolution. Instead they are the consequence of an aggressive nihilistic naturalism. 

It is this brand of nihilistic naturalism that is truly unsavoury, and it appears countless atheists agree. That is why so many atheists are asking that Dawkins is no longer regarded as their mouthpiece. And as Christians, we should not deny them that desire for the sake of rhetorical capital.