Dawkins just won't shut up

Richard Dawkins took to Twitter once again to share his views on rape, seemingly in an attempt to out-sexist himself:

Raping a drunk woman is appalling. So is jailing a man when the sole prosecution evidence is “I was too drunk to remember what happened.”

If he would have stopped with the first sentence, this post would not be happening. Nor would this snarky, yet scathing post over at Perry Street Palace.

What is the problem are the problems with the Tweet, you may ask?

Dawkins appears to think that men are jailed based on the testimony of women who say “I was too drunk to remember”.  Is this the case?

 

 

First off, no man is thrown in jail simply because a woman has accused him of rape. That’s not how the criminal justice system works in the US, nor in the UK.  You actually have to have this little thing called A TRIAL. Dawkins might have heard about those.

Second, rapists don’t often see the inside of a jail cell.

(via RAINN)

 

(via RAINN)

Dawkins’ Tweet rests upon a LOT of assumptions:

  • That the victim of a rape will report their assault to the police
  • That the police will arrest the rapist
  • That the arrest will lead to a prosecution
  • That the prosecution will lead to a felony conviction

That’s a lot of assumptions.  Strange, for someone who seemingly values evidence based opinions, Dawkins doesn’t seem to be basing his opinions on actual evidence.

 

Secondly, the “too drunk to remember” line is rape culture enabling bullshit.  If the man had sex with her while she was drunk that was rape.  Why?

(source)

“But…but…but” you might say (if you’re a misogynistic scumbag who doesn’t value bodily autonomy) “how do you know there wasn’t consent?”

Well you ignorant fuck, that’s because you cannot give consent if you’re intoxicated.

  • Inability to consent due to intoxication means “no.” When a person is the recipient of sexual advances but is highly intoxicated, he or she may be unable to consent to any sexual conduct. In the words of the Review Board, “sexual interactions with another party who has been drinking heavily should . . . be undertaken . . . at one’s own risk.” A panel of the Hearing Board has also noted, “No member of the community should be at risk of a sexual assault merely because [he or she] consumes too much alcohol at a party. Cornell aspires to be a community in which students come to the aid of others who find themselves in such a state [rather than seeing them] as someone [to] exploit.”

Dawkins’ Tweet fails to acknowledge this reality.  If a victim says “I was too drunk to remember”, they were too drunk to give consent.  And we all know what sex without consent is, right?

It’s rape.  I shouldn’t need to spell this out, but there are a lot, I mean A LOT, of people who actively deny that sex without consent is rape.

Another problem with Dawkins’ Tweet is that he’s influential. He has a public platform and is adored by many people.  In some areas, like evolutionary biology, he is an authority. His words should carry weight there.  In other areas, like atheism and religion, he’s well educated and informed.  He knows his shit. When it comes to social justice issues such as feminism though? Dawkins is just another asshole with a podium.  He doesn’t know what he’s talking about, yet many people still listen to his words and believe what he says because he’s an authority on evolutionary biology or because he’s a leading voice in the atheist movement.  Despite how wrong he is, people listen to him. People believe him. When he takes to Twitter, people listen.  He’s not using his power and influence responsibly. He’s contributing to a culture of minimization of sexual assault and rape.  He’s helping perpetuate Rape Culture.  That is abominable coming from the average person on the street. It’s 50 shades of shitty when it comes from a public figure with a huge audience like Richard Dawkins.  He has a lot of power and he is increasingly using it irresponsibly.

Here is a bit more information concerning consent:

  • Consent is required for all sexual contact. As the Review Board has articulated, “the central element of the offense of sexual assault is lack of consent, whether procured by force, simply withheld, or by a person incapable of consent by reason of some incapacity.” While some cases that have come before the campus disciplinary system have involved force, the more common scenario is where consent is withheld or the recipient of the sexual advances does not have the capacity to consent because of intoxication.
  • Consent may be withheld in a number of ways. The recipient of the advances may use words, such as saying “no” or “let’s just cuddle” or giving an excuse to stop an activity like “I am dating someone” or “I want to go to sleep.” Or, the actions of the recipient may demonstrate lack of consent, such as turning away, moving the other person’s hands or stopping any participation in the activity. Indeed, silence may indicate non-consent by, for example, not responding positively to a question about a sexual act. Stating “no” sets the barrier to the activity and is not an invitation to keep trying. But the absence of “no” should not be interpreted as “yes.”
  • Consent may never be presumed. Students come to Cornell with a range of experiences and expectations. For some, engaging in sexual activities has been routine for years; for others, exploring their sexuality is something that will wait for several years; others are somewhere in between. If a person in one of these categories “hooks up” with a person in another category, there can be misunderstandings. Communication is key to learning whether all parties to a sexual encounter are in agreement; it is not enough to act based on circumstances. The bottom line? If there is ambiguity—that is, if you are not sure what the other person is thinking—ASK! Review Board precedent requires that ambiguities be resolved in favor of the complaining student and against the sexual initiator.
  • Consent for one activity does not mean consent for all activities. Consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual encounter. Agreeing to go to someone’s room does not mean there is consent for sexual activity. Consent to kiss does not mean consent for other sexual activities. Consent to “petting” does not mean consent to intercourse. Consent to vaginal intercourse does not mean consent to anal intercourse. This goes back to communication: Ask if you and the other person are on the same page rather than making assumptions based on circumstances. The Review Board, in explaining that each sexual act is different and needs consent, wrote, “the burden of making sure that [the complainant] consented to proceeding from the first [sexual act] to the second rested upon the defendant. In short, consent may never be presumed.”
  • The responsibility for misinterpretation when either party has been drinking falls on the initiator of further sexual activity. If the person seeking sex is intoxicated, he or she has a decreased ability to discern the capacity of the other party to give consent. Under Cornell’s rules, the inability to perceive capacity does not excuse the behavior of the person who begins the sexual interaction or tries to take it to another level. The Review Board has held that “intoxication is neither a defense to sexual assault nor an exonerating circumstance, with the result that sexual interactions after periods of heavy drinking should be undertaken with caution” and, in another case, “failure to recognize that the victim was too drunk to consent is no defense to a charge of sexual assault as defined by the Cornell Code . . . The responsibility for ascertaining [complainant’s] mental state rested upon [accused student], as did the risk of failing to do so.”

 

 

 

{advertisement}
Dawkins just won't shut up
{advertisement}

30 thoughts on “Dawkins just won't shut up

  1. SF
    1

    However much you might dislike Dawkins or Harris, it is a big mistake to equate their comments with someone like say Shermer. The former may be guilty of making insensitive or not properly articulated comments, the latter may be guilty of a felony. In your comments on fTB you and many like minded fellows seem all to keen on conflating the two and putting all supposed enemies of feminism into the same boat. A garden variety skinhead is simply not the same as an actual Nazi. Try asking holocaust survivors if there is a difference.

  2. 2

    I never said the actions of Dawkins, Harris, and Shermer are equally abominable. But I have condemned all of them. I think you’re making the mistake of assuming that bc I’ve been criticized all three of them and that I think they’ve all engaged in harmful behavior that said behavior is all equivalent. I’ve never said that, however, yes, Shermer’s actions are worse, IMO than Harris or Dawkins’ because he acted on his misogynistic beliefs. He willfully engaged in predatory tactics and violated the bodily autonomy of Allison Smith (and possibly other women). That Harris and Dawkins have not engaged in the same repugnant behavior that Shermer has does not mean that they should not be criticized. They’ve said harmful shit that propagates sexist and misogynistic beliefs. They both have a public platform that they use to spread their thoughts and people listen to and respect them. That right there is a huge problem. Dawkins, IMO is inbetween Shermer and Harris. He’s worse than Harris bc he’s spreading harmful Rape Culture ideas like holding women responsible for their own rapes. He’s not quite as bad as Shermer bc AFAIK, he hasn’t raped anyone. By sharing his beliefs about women and rape though, Dawkins contributes to an environment where rape is trivialized and dismissed, which in turn helps provide cover for people like Shermer.
    I don’t think you’re reading neither my comments nor those of others at FtB correctly. You’re reading things into them that are not there (“you think these are all equivalent”), and you’re not seeing the nuance in the comments.
    And I’d say a garden variety skinhead IS as bad as a nazi. Unless you’re specifically talking about Nazi’s in WWII (remember, there are Nazi’s today). In either case though, the racism they both display is on a continuum. One might be worse than the other (and that’s debatable), but they’re both awful.

  3. SF
    3

    I don’t agree with you. Watch American History X. It is a very powerful story about a garden variety skin head, who did see the light and change.

  4. 4

    You don’t agree with what? That racism exists on a continuum? Or that a skinhead is as bad as a Nazi?
    If the latter, you didn’t define which Nazi you were talking about.

  5. SF
    5

    I’m not picking on you in particular, but there does seem to be a lot of everyone is equally bad sort of thing going on in fTB commentary. Saying misogynistic things is not at all the same as actually raping someone. Its probably just a difference of opinion, but I really don’t think Dawkins or Harris or anyone else really has that much effect on peoples opinions anyway, unless your a mindless authoritarian drone. For example I like some aspects of some things Harris has written, but I wouldn’t turn to him in any way on how I should treat women or my position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where I think he is deeply mistaken. I think you and many others in fTB are given to inflate the actual influences of peoples opinions on any given matters. I like Dawkins for some of his innovative works in evolution such as The Selfish Gene, but couldn’t give a rats ass about his views on feminism. In other words I think for myself. I’m not going to start using the c-word in front of a woman because I heard Jillette uses it. You give the impression that we’re all mindless robots who echo and parrot out the thoughts of what some so called experts we happen to admire think. This is the authoritarian mindset that is more characteristic of right wingers. I admit that is how most right wingers operate, but I think it is a bit simplistic to think everyone operates like that.

  6. 6

    I don’t think your comments are correct about how we’re “given to inflate” the influences of people like Dawkins or Harris. Take a look at the comments at Pharyngula on Harris’ recent comments, or Dawkins’. The criticism from me (I won’t speak for anyone else) initially center around my issues with what they say. Inevitably (and it happened in both threads, and has happened multiple times in prior threads), the defenders of either of them (more often Dawkins) come into the threads and defend them. In a lot of cases, these defenders ignore the substance of the criticisms against them. I think there are a lot of people in the atheist movement that have an authoritarian mindset. Many of the people who have defended Dawkins in the threads at Pharyngula for instance, seem to display a near hero worship of the man.
    I don’t think everyone operates like that, and I think you’re painting with a really broad brush to make the claim that I do.
    I think you’re looking at the criticisms I’ve made of Dawkins or his followers and thinking I’m generalizing them. No, those comments are specific to individuals, not generalized to all Dawkins followers.
    Perhaps if you were to quote where you think I’m generalizing, this would help me understand what you mean, bc as it stands I think you’re offbase.

  7. SF
    7

    Lets put it another way. Give me an example of recent comments in which fTB regulars have in any way acknowledged positive contributions to atheism and/or science from Richard Dawkins. There seems to be a total myopic focus on his twitter comments to the exclusion of anything else the man has ever done. Take the extreme and say he is a total sexist asshole. Does that mean that his contributions to atheism or science are nill. Let me give you two even more prominent scientists who could arguably be considered even bigger assholes for different reasons – Isaac Newton and James Watson. James Watson essentially stole Rosalind Franklin’s research, wrote a sexist book celebrating how he stole his research, and yet probably 500 years from now he will still be remembered in the history books when practically everyone else will be forgotten. Newton spent the end of his days proudly killing counterfeiters who in those days were drawn and quartered. I don’t think any of Dawkins behavior is remotely close to either of these guys.in any way. Maybe you don’t understand biology, but the man has made major contributions to evolutionary biology that must be acknowledged. That doesn’t mean that every thing he says is gospel or even anything outside his expertise should not be taken in uncritically. You shouldn’t ignore his faults, nor should you make them into a giant pimple that obscures the total man. I think that obsessive focus on his twitter comments to the exclusion of everything else is quite myopic.

  8. 8

    It’s my responsibility to refute your opinions? You’re making an assertion about comments, that I know are not true, but I have to go out and disprove YOU, rather than you prove that your opinions are true? I don’t think that’s right at all. I’ve participated in many threads talking about Dawkins where regular commenters specifically stated that no one should throw out the good that Dawkins has done, but that doesn’t excuse or mitigate the harm that he’s done either.

  9. SF
    9

    Just one last comment as food for thought. If you dig into anyone’s background, sooner or later your going to see flaws. But you have to look at the whole, rather than concentrate on one thing that offends you. Let me apply the same standards for Dawkins on Martin Luther King Jr. He plagiarized his dissertation, may have even plagiarized his I have a dream speech, was very well known as a serial womanizer. By freethoughtblogs logic, one could easily make the case that he was a misogynist, he treated women by his actions far worse than Dawkins ever has by his words, and by common standards plagiarism is not generally considered a good thing. By I and most people consider him a great man, probably one of the greatest in American history, warts and all, If you are looking for dirt, you will always find it. Everyone comes out looking bad if you look deep enough, What is the point of that.

  10. 10

    That’s ridiculous. I, and many others, are being critical of the public statements of Dawkins and others people in the atheist movement. They are not immune from criticism because they’ve done good. Acknowledge the good, criticize the bad. I’m not going to ignore the harmful shit (which I realize you don’t see as harmful) just bc Dawkins wrote a bunch of books people were influenced by.

  11. SF
    11

    Your right. I’m much more concerned with what people do rather than what they say. You and fellow freethoughtbloggers never got the memo in Kindergarden, that “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt.” I could find a thousand things on the internet ever day that offend me if I want to. I care a lot more about what people do than what they say. And what institutions do rather than what they say. Hence the sharp distinction between Dawkins and Shermer. Is there any record of Dawkins discriminating against women in his scientific or foundation activities? Sure he’s had multiple marriages, but there is no record I’m aware of concerning actual direct abuse and harassment of women. If there were, I’m sure there would be no problem in this day and age shining a bright spotlight on it. So Dawkins might be deliberately provocative on twitter in a ham fisted manner, but so what. if Dawkins is aware of the reaction, I’d guess that the continued over the top responses to his tweets are just going to motivate him do it more, just to provoke even more reaction in order to get an even bigger kick out of it, if that’s what he’s doing – i.e. your falling right into the trap.

    Were living in a strange new world in which what you say seems to carry a lot more weight that what you do. To me this is quite dangerous from a civil liberty perspective. You can often loose your livelihood much more easily over what you say than what you do. Donald Sterling had to sell the Clippers not because he made his fortune as a slumlord in an overtly racist manner, or that he paid off a string of underage women to date him for years, but because he made a racist comment about Magic Johnson stupidly during a phone call. This kind of climate you don’t find even mildly disturbing?

  12. 12

    No, it doesn’t. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of that speech. The government cannot impose on the free speech of citizens, but the public can. If a company wants to fire someone because they make homophobic, racist, or misogynistic comments they can, and it is their right. If you or anyone else doesn’t like it, and wish to express that, it’s your right.
    It sounds like you’re a free speech absolutist. I value free speech, but I feel that people should be responsible with that speech. Just because you can say something doesn’t mean you should say something. Saying racist, sexist, or homophobic things affects others, despite what you may believe. Such things can affect the mental health of others, or it can just be an ongoing microaggression.
    Also, the sticks and stones saying really ought to be relegated to childhood. It’s a simplistic statement that has no bearing on reality. It’s actually a lie. You can be hurt emotionally and psychologically. A lesbian child can bear deep emotional scars from being rejected by her parents after coming out of the closet. Those are “just words”. The public consciousness shifted during the Civil Rights Movement in large part because of words that were spoken.
    Words have the power to incite and persuade. They have the power to uplift and demean. They have the power to transport us to realms of fantasy, or cause us to recoil in horror.
    You do a disservice to the power of words simply because you want to excuse your hero Dawkins.

  13. SF
    14

    I don’t deny that words have power to influence people, but I think you greatly exaggerate their influence. Do you honestly think Dawkins tweets are going to lead to an upswing in sexism in the culture at large? Most people aren’t even aware that Dawkins even exists much less his tweets. I’d guess the vast majority of people who are even aware of Dawkins do so through his written works which don’t even touch on issues like feminism. So if you brought this up to someone, they’d say something like – say what? It plays out more as a internet psychodrama akin to the Sarkeesian wars between followers of Thunderf00t and PZ Myers, than something that actually has any real impact in the real world. If Dawkins had the influence of say Rush Limbaugh, you might have more of a point, since he delivers millions of voters who do real damage with their voting patterns. But this simply isn’t the case. The influence of his views on feminism on the culture at large are virtually nill.

    Besides, when you start constraining free speech, you are beginning down a slippery slope that may lead to places you don’t want to go. Constraining things that you or I might find offensive might seem OK but where does it stop and who decides. What if we decide that saying things offensive to nationalism, corporations or the government affects others so you should be fired or jailed for that. That logic can be used in multiple ways that lead to totalitarian ends.

  14. 15

    No one is constraining free speech. Telling people that other are hurt by words is not preventing those people from using the words. Suggesting to people that certain words are hurtful and offensive-most especially those words that are used against minorities and marginalized people-is not constraining speech.
    It’s asking people to recognize the power of words to hurt others, and make the choice not to use them.

  15. SF
    16

    Its fine to tell people that their words are hurtful, but respect that some hurtful things may in some cases just deep differences of opinion on social issues – e.g. Dawkins tweets. On a case by case basis, if I agree that one or more the tweets is more than just a disagreement and is offensive, I have no problem whatsoever calling him out on it. I have no problem calling him out on it even if it just reflects a personal misunderstanding.

    But what seems to happen is the leap to character assassination calling him a misogynist and supporter of rape culture, like a garden variety Rush Limbaugh type. I’m also fine if that is what you believe and want to say it repeatedly. But don’t be surprised when others use their free speech rights to express their deep disagreement with this point of view. Be consistent and admit that both forms of free speech are legitimate.

    If you want to go beyond this and demand that certain people be fired or imprisoned for use of certain words, if it is done as a private citizen I have a real problem with that, no matter how offensive. When this happens you have constrained free speech.

    If it is done as an employee, of course it is legitimate to hold people accountable for what they say since they signed up for those constraints. But even here we need to be careful, since this can all to easily be abused.

    Noticed you never addressed the slippery slope argument on what constitutes what we consider offensive. Probably because you don’t have any ready made answers for that.

  16. 17

    There was no need to address it because you’re the only one talking about constraining speech. I’m talking about convincing people that certain types of speech is harmful. These aren’t the same things.

  17. 18

    Also, firing people for what they say is not a free speech violation or constraint unless they were a government employee. Why do you have such a hard time understanding free speech?

  18. SF
    19

    I know firing people for what they say happens all the time. Doesn’t mean it’s a good thing in a supposedly free society. Anyway you answered my question, if it is deemed harmful to speak against the government, a corporation or the country it’s perfectly fine to fire them. If you can fire them for saying some racist sexist thing, why not a lot of other things as well.

  19. SF
    20

    Here’s my own mini rant about what is wrong with your whole social justice mindset. Its not that there aren’t problems in our society with racism, sexism, homophobia etc, that should be ignored. We can build a society where we shun the comments of Ted Nugent and Phil Robertson but it doesn’t really matter in the long run. Why – your missing the point about what is really going on. Economic injustice drives social injustice. We live in a corporatocracy. Corporations will fire Ray Rice and Peterson not because they give a rats ass about the injustices, but because it is bad for business. Having guys hit their girlfriends in elevators is simply bad for ticket sales. I’m confident that we will largely solve the racist sexist shit things people say problem in our country largely because Corporate America cares about branding, and those kind of things are simply bad for the brand. We will build a world where women aren’t harassed and are paid pretty much the same as men also because the alternative is bad for business. But basically we’ll all be working for WalMart, meantime the Waltons will increase their share of wealth dominance which is something like equivalent to the bottom 40% currently. I’m confident that the things you are concerned about will be solved. The Dawkins of the future will very tactfully avoid saying these sorts of things or anything at all, lest they interfere with their speakers fees and book sales.

    Basically what I’m saying is your missing the main problem – the real elephant in the room – corporate control of virtually everything. If everyone is totally broke or working 3 jobs just to stay afloat, it won’t really matter how much racial and gender equality exists. Then we’ll all be free and equal, and the corporatocrats can just blame all of us for our failures on laziness.

    But I never hear you guys talking about this. You just want to squabble about what the latest racist, sexist or homophobic thing of the week someone has said. Like I said in the long run this is irrelevant, because these sorts of things aren’t profitable to businesses. This is the real problem we need to address if we ever hope to have a real society worth fighting for. Read Matt Taibbi or Paul Krugman for starters, if you want to know how the world actually works.

    That is why I spend my social justice time if you want to call it that, working with the Occupy movement.

  20. 22

    Incidentally, I do agree with you that corporations are huge problem. I disagree that social ills will be taken care of because corporations care about branding.
    You take issue with the fact that I, and others, don’t focus on the things you think we should focus on. ::shrugs::

  21. SF
    23

    Wrong. 99% of social ills have been solved basically because of corporate branding. All thinks equal not discriminating against gays increases the chances of hiring better job practices. If you can’t see that runaway Reaganomics with corporate personhood is the root cause of practically all our problems, your totally blind. But oh well, waste your time and life majoring in totally minor issues such as having long discussions about the latest insults from your favorite former atheist heroes. You should cherish someone like Richard Dawkins, he talks like a real human being warts and all, he doesn’t hide his biases in corporate doublespeak which is increasingly becoming the norm. You’ll get your wish anyway with increasingly politically correct bland atheist speakers who talk about nothing, but don’t offend anyone. We’re well on our way to that world.

  22. SF
    25

    Easy. The only social ills that matter are ones corporations endorse. In other words if solving the social ill helps profits, the corporations will endorse it and society as a whole will embrace it. Else it ain’t happening.

  23. SF
    26

    Also thanks also for agreeing with me all down the line with practically everything I’ve said. Lacking any substantial refutation whatsoever, that is my full take.

    Great, life goes on. I have been vindicated.

  24. 27

    I don’t agree with you on much of anything. Lack of response doesn’t indicate agreement. Surely you know that.
    I just grew tired of the conversation.

  25. SF
    28

    I know you mean well in what you try to do, but you need to recognize it’s not the Dawkins’ and Harris’ of the world that cause global misery or really have that much affect on anything at all, but rather the Koch brothers, Waltons, Murdochs, Romneys and Goldman Sachs and all of their ilk in the world that are slicing and dicing the world so we’re all little more that commodified global wage slaves no matter where you look. Your anger and activism should appropriately be directed to the primary culprits of misery traders.

Comments are closed.