Why Sam Harris' Comments Can't be Sexist

Award winning author, Sam Harris, has been on the receiving end of several accusations of having made some sexist off-the-cuff comments when responding to an unanticipated question from an interviewer during a speaking engagement.

Today, I will address two questions: what is sexism, and is Dr. Harris guilty? Then, I will look at a couple of objections to what appears to me to be the only reasonable verdict: innocent.

What is sexism?

Merriam-Webster defines ‘sexism’ as: “unfair treatment of people because of their sex; especially : unfair treatment of women”. They further add that “behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex” qualify. Since it is remarks that are under question, I'll use the latter definition.

‘Unfair’ is further defined as: “marked by injustice, partiality, or deception”. A ‘stereotype’ is defined as: “an often unfair and untrue belief that many people have about all people or things with a particular characteristic.”

We can synthesize these definitions and ask if Dr. Harris’ remarks amount to fostering untrue or deceptive beliefs that many people have about women.

Notice that this question reduces to an empirical one for which there is, at least in principle, an answer. Were Dr. Harris’ comments about men and women untrue or deceptive? To answer this, we will examine what he said about psychological differences between the genders. Then, we will examine whether the evidence appears to indicate that what he said is untrue or deceptive.

But first, let’s clarify what Dr. Harris did not say. One would think that I wouldn’t have to repeat that which he clearly expressed here, but so many of the accusations against him are based on these distortions:

He did not say that a psychological difference between the genders does explain why “angry atheism” attracts more men. He hypothesized that such a gender difference might contribute to that explanation.

He did not say that whatever psychological differences might be at play, they must be innate or biological. He acknowledged that they may be contributed to by either biology or socio-cultural influences.

He did not say that women aren’t capable of thinking as critically as men or that they are more gullible than men.

He did not say that this matter is undeserving of even five minutes of his time.

Were Harris’ comments sexist?

Dr. Harris thinks that women are, in general, less attracted to the aggressive and charged confrontations that characterize active atheism than men are. Based on the definition of sexism above, it follows that one could only find Dr. Harris’ comments sexist if one could not reasonably conclude that the available evidence indicates that females may be less psychologically inclined towards aggression.

In 2005, psychologist Janet Shibley Hyde, PhD, analysed 46 meta-analyses spanning over two decades of investigation into a variety of psychological gender differences including cognitive variables, verbal and non-verbal communication, social or personality variables, measures of psychological well-being, and others (1). In almost all cases, the research indicated that males and females are much more alike than they are different. In contrast to the “gender differences hypothesis” she was initially investigating, she ended up coining the “gender similiarities hypothesis”. Men and women, it seems, are not from Mars and Venus, after all. This was her conclusion:

“The gender similarities hypothesis stands in stark contrast to the differences model, which holds that men and women, and boys and girls, are vastly different psychologically. The gender similarities hypothesis states, instead, that males and females are alike on most—but not all—psychological variables. Extensive evidence from meta-analyses of research on gender differences supports the gender similarities hypothesis. A few notable exceptions are some motor behaviors (e.g., throwing distance) and some aspects of sexuality, which show large gender differences. Aggression shows a gender difference that is moderate in magnitude.

It is time to consider the costs of overinflated claims of gender differences. Arguably, they cause harm in numerous realms, including women’s opportunities in the workplace, couple conflict and communication, and analyses of self- esteem problems among adolescents. Most important, these claims are not consistent with the scientific data.”

The last paragraph underscores the sobering consequences of sexism. But while Dr. Hyde found that these concerns are valid for most gender differences (similarities, actually), they aren't necessarily valid for aggression, where a real difference between males and females was identified.

I’m not a psychologist or an expert in this field, but after reading that relatively recent and thorough review and doing some web-based searches that failed to find any data that would clearly overturn Dr. Hyde’s conclusion, it seems to me that one could tentatively stop here.

Of course, I’m completely open to other relevant and more recent data, and if anybody reading this knows of any, please chime in.

I’ll be the first to admit that the available data doesn’t conclusively prove that a large enough gender difference in aggression does explain the apparent male predominance in the “angry atheist movement”. Nobody knows what does. But for Dr. Harris to be found innocent, it must only be the case that one could reasonably hypothesize that such a difference might play a relevant role.

A couple of possible objections

Perhaps, based on the same evidence, you disagree with Dr. Hyde’s conclusion. That doesn’t make Dr. Harris’ comments sexist. Reasonable people can and often do disagree on the interpretation of imperfect evidence. Dr. Harris’ comments could only be sexist if it were unreasonable for Dr. Hyde herself to have reached her (sexist, in that case) conclusion about aggression. (Again, new overturning evidence, to which I am completely open, would also be relevant here.)

One of the most thoughtful objections to Dr. Harris’ remarks that I’ve discovered come from a blogger named Libby Anne. I encourage people to read her post in it's entirety. Here’s a part of what she wrote:

"Would Harris suggest that black and Hispanic men, too, have a “nurturing, coherence-building, extra estrogen vibe” that makes the angry tone of Harris’s atheist activism off-putting? Presumably not. Presumably Harris understands that there are a variety of reasons for the underrepresentation of people of color, including both casual racism in the organized atheist community and cultural specifics in the wider society, none of which have anything to do with any sort of underlying psychological differences. And yet, when it comes to the underrepresentation of women in organized atheism Harris chooses not to consider either casual sexism in the organized atheist community or the cultural landscape women live their lives against. Instead, he jumps straight to presumed psychological differences between men and women."

It turns out that Ms. Anne and I are both conveniently employing the same Merriam-Webster definition of sexism. Remember that for Dr. Harris’ comments to be sexist, they must reduce to an unreasonable distortion of the evidence. Perhaps it is important, then, that Ms. Anne thought that that question would require "plenty of long conversations" and preferred “not to get into these questions right now.” Is it possible that Dr. Harris' position isn't as obviously untrue, unfair, and deceptive, as to warrant the charge of sexism?

Regarding Ms. Anne's analogy, I had a look, and as far as I could see, there isn’t any reasonable psychological evidence supporting the claim that Blacks and Hispanics are less aggressive (or psychologically different in any other relevant way) than their Caucasian counterparts. That's precisely why that suggestion would represent bigotry, and why it's not a relevant analogy. As for Dr. Harris jumping to psychological gender differences, he did, in his blog, acknowledge that sexism, misogyny, and social pressures (all themselves, potentially influenced by recognized psychological gender differences in aggression and sexuality, I would add) are relevant considerations.

Conclusion

It seems that the question of whether Dr. Harris’ comments are sexist boils down to an empirical one. Is it possible to reasonably conclude, on the basis of the available evidence, that men may be fonder of the aggressive and charged confrontations that characterize the visible North American atheism movement because men are psychologically more inclined towards aggression than women are, when considered in the aggregate? I think that the answer is yes, and so I think that it’s just not possible for the charge of sexism that’s been made about Dr. Harris to stick.

Because the question of Dr. Harris' innocence is an empirical one, I would hope that people on both sides of this debate would restrict the conversation to one about the relevant evidence. As a core message of the atheism movement, it's ironic that that would require a reminder. No matter what we think of Dr. Harris' comments, wouldn't we all benefit from that kind of conversation, rather than the one we are seeing right now?


1. The Gender Similarities Hypothesis. American Psychologist 2005;60:581-92.

What does God say about slavery?

I've been blogging lately in response to some challenges posed by my friend and one of my most excellent high school teachers, Johnston Smith.  Those efforts have lead me to write about the evolutionary origins of morality (how an unguided process that looks like it might only reward selfishness can produce selfless agents) and about the failures of Judeo-Christian divine command theory (the idea that real, objective morality can only come from the dictates of God) but something has been left out. That something has for a long time bothered me about Christian theism and its many claims for the moral high ground. What bothers me most about it is how Christians somehow manage to deal with their cognitive dissonance on this subject. I'm talking now, about a heinous immorality that our species has largely overcome: slavery.

Presumably, the immorality of chattel slavery represents one of many transcendent, objective, moral truths, the likes of which emanate from the will or nature of God.

What then, does God have to say about slavery? I've been meaning to write a blog post about this for some time, but then I stumbled upon this one and I really don't think that I could do a better job considering how well linked this one is to relevant Bible passages. 

The only thing I would add is that the idea that the slavery instructed in the Bible only represents "indentured servitude" (where someone serves another as a debt and only until the debt is repaid) is just false. While the Bible does instruct indentured servitude of some Israelite slaves, it also endorses chattel slavery (life-long, permanent ownership of slaves and their offspring) and sexual slavery (Exodus 21:7-11) for non-Israelites. This is the most despicable type of slavery imaginable, and Leviticus 25:44-46, well, let me just let NonStampCollector make the point as only he can:

So without further ado, here's someone only known to me as "The Beagle". You can follow the active link over to his blog for other interesting reads.

What did Jesus Say About Slavery?

[This post is a Beagle's Bark. It is part of a series on biblical slavery.]

Jesus was a great reformer. In an age of extreme class division and status-consciousness, he identified with the poor and urged us to do the same. During a time when the Holy Land was occupied by a foreign power, he taught his countrymen how to maintain their dignity. When the religious leaders were corrupt, he called them to account.

So I find it puzzling that he never spoke a word against slavery, as far as we know.

If he was divine, he knew it would be nearly 2,000 years until most of the world would realize how immoral slavery is. He also knew that slave-owners would use the Old Testament to justify the practice. One clear word from him could have prevented the misery of millions. Why did he not speak it? (And it’s hard to believe that if the Bible is inspired, God would not have inspired at least one of the four gospel-writers to record Jesus’ words on so important a topic.)

It’s not as if there was no slavery around to speak against. Jesus often illustrated his points with stories about slaves and masters. Everybody was all too familiar with the concept, and it was as brutal as ever.

Slavery Was Brutal, and Jesus Knew It

Since Jesus never condemned slavery, we might hope that he thought of slavery in the relatively benign forms that are sometimes found in the Old Testament. Not so. When he spoke about the relationship of slaves and masters, he assumed that violence and abuse were the order of the day. Typical is Luke 12:47-48, where even a servant who doesn’t know what he ought to do gets beaten.

The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows.

That passage is part of a larger parable that is supposed to scare us into submission to God. Like a slave or servant, we will be physically harmed if we’re not good enough.

There are several parables like this in the gospels. Matthew 18:23-35 says we will be jailed and tortured. Matthew 25:14-30 says we will be cast into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 24:45-51 says we will be cut in pieces. All of these indicate how Jesus pictured masters treating their slaves.

Jesus held no illusions about slavery, yet did not decry the practice. In fact, in his parables he cast God as a slave-owner!

The Golden Rule Evidently Did Not Apply to Slaves

One might say that when Jesus gave the Golden Rule he implied that slavery was wrong. If we’re to treat others as we want them to treat us, that means we shouldn’t enslave them, right?

That point was not lost on the abolitionists.

There’s only one problem. When Jesus presented the Golden Rule, he cast it as a summary of Old Testament Law. As we have seen throughout this series of posts, the Old Testament not only allowed but in some cases commanded slavery. Jesus made a point of saying that he supported the Old Testament Law 100%, and nothing he taught should be interpreted as contradicting or negating the Old Testament.

That point was not lost on the abolitionists’ opponents.

At a minimum, we can say that if Jesus meant the Golden Rule as a command to abolish slavery, then millions of slaves in the next 1800 years would wish he had made his intent more obvious.

Jesus Was a Reformer, But Not with Slavery

Might Jesus have thought it was not yet the time to speak against slavery? Was he afraid of upsetting the social order and bringing persecution on his followers?

On the contrary, Jesus did not hesitate to turn society upside-down. Sometimes he did so literally, as when he upset the tables of the money-changers in the temple (John 2:13-17). At other times, he made radical demands such as giving away all one’s money (Matthew 19:16-24). He did not hesitate to speak boldly to those in power (Matthew 23:13-36). Nor was he afraid of persecution, calling it a blessing (Matthew 5:10-12).

Jesus did not hesitate to speak his mind, yet he never condemned slavery. Clearly he either thought it was just fine or he didn’t care much about it one way or the other. Maybe he just took it for granted.

I am tempted to leave it at that. Even Jesus might have been a man of his times to a certain extent. He was a moral revolutionary, but abolishing slavery didn’t quite make it into his manifesto. If you are a Bible-believing Christian, however, I think you are forced into a much darker position.

An Even Darker Take

According to John 10:30, Jesus and God the Father are one. John 1:1-3, with verse 14 says that Jesus was with God from the beginning. In John 5:19, Jesus says that he does whatever God the Father does. Someone who takes these verses as Gospel Truth must believe some disturbing things:

• Jesus was present and nodding in approval when God gave the command to take 32,000 virgins as plunder in Numbers 31 (discussed in the last part of this post).
• Jesus was present and gave a hearty “Amen” when God commanded Moses to enslave distant cities.
• Jesus was present and gave his blessing for Moses’ soldiers to force their most beautiful captives into rape-marriages (discussed here).

No wonder he never spoke against slavery or its brutality in the New Testament. He had already encouraged it in the Old!

Eternally present and of one mind with his Father, he approved every genocide; every stoning of man, woman, child and animal; every burning-alive; every death sentence for a trivial offense; and, yes, every enslavement that God himself commanded. That may seem far-fetched. I don’t believe it myself. But I don’t see how a Bible-believer can deny it.