|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2013 : 22:45:40 [Permalink]
|
More disillusionment!
I wish I could disbelieve that Dawkins had said those things, but unfortunately he did. This follows the general pattern of white men of wealth or petty power who at best trivialize the exploitation of the relatively powerless (the poor, the female, the dark of skin, the very young), and at worst criminally exploit their advantages over them. Dawkins trivializes pedophilia. His "... can't find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today” phrase floors me with its weasel-wording. Does he condemn this child molestation, or not? And if so, by what standards? I was born in 1945, and I don't recall societal "standards" toward pedophilia changing noticeably in the years since.
And racism? (Why the f**k did he have to throw that out, too? In for a foot, in for both feet?) Yes, societal standards have changed on racism, though not as much as they should have. But why should racism of the mid 20th Century be judged even an iota more mildly than it is today? Did the segregationist, lynch mob "standards" of that time have some kind of traditional logic? Of course not -- racism has been a blight in every age and every society where it has raised its ugly head.
At the time, Dawkins certainly did not like the kiddie-fiddler's abuse. But perhaps, as he said, it did him little lasting damage (though please excuse my doubts on that score). But Dawkins does not have the right to trivialize child molestation, even by implication, however well he thinks he bounced back from being its victim.
Perhaps Dawkins is he looking back at his childhood years in general with a sort of rosy nostalgia which he is reluctant to pollute with serious thoughts of his exploitation by a pedophile. That's fine with me, so long as such a thought stays inside Dawkins' head. But when it comes out of his mouth, and does so sounding like the trivialization of pedophilia, I've got a problem with Dawkins on the order of the problem I have with the pedophile priest protecting previous Pope. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 09/11/2013 08:27:18 |
 |
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
 Posted - 09/11/2013 : 06:28:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Unbelievable times infinity. |
Indeed, I'm floored too. What a compassionless, uninsightful comment and attitude. I can only hope the social fallout strikes him like lightning, "enlightening" him to his extreme short comings on this. To be so incapable of seeing the difference with his own self described unpleasant experience with others traumatically devastating and at times way more ongoing experiences is stupidly unimaginable, coming from a person in his position and educational background. I'm just stunned at his lack of imagination to not even remotely understand what he has not experienced directly.
She also notes that there is a petition:We, the undersigned atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, and other non-believers, hereby condemn Richard Dawkins' continued comments trivializing what he termed 'mild' sexual abuse of children. Dr. Dawkins is seen by many as a representative of the atheist community -- but when it comes to his dismissive comments on the incredibly serious topic of sexual abuse, the atheist community emphatically does not stand with him.
|
Thank you Dave, for posting the existence of this petition here. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2013 : 08:49:13 [Permalink]
|
Ben Radford also continues to embarrass himself. Ophelia Benson has the details, and it boils down to Radford suggesting that pointing out problems is itself a problem unless you can offer a solution, which is ridiculous. In other words, unless you think you can solve sexual harassment, Radford seems to think you shouldn't complain about its existence. As is pointed out many times, it's just another way of saying, "shut up about harassment."
Commenter G Pierce points out:...the fact that a known sexual harasser and assaulter is able to come into this discussion at all is fucked up. So much for the horrible social consequences to men who are accused of harassment or assault. Not only does he still have a job, but he still gets to insert his disingenuous opinion in a serious discussion of sexism where women may not feel particularly comfortable engaging with him. So if you hear anyone worrying about how, say, the accusations against Shermer are going to ruin his career, tell them that history doesn't support that hypothesis. Radford is just one more piece of evidence that that particular slippery slope ain't very slippery. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2013 : 08:58:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
...I do agree that within reason, one eras morals can't be used to judge other eras just like some customs are culture specific. |
But that's exactly what Dawkins does when he calls out Old Testament barbarisms. It's rank hypocrisy.| That said, I agree with everyone but Myers. He created a strawman from what Dawkins said. Dawkins did say, "...and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today.” In other words, he wouldn't tolerate it today. |
So something changed. Was it Dawkins getting older (in which case Myers didn't strawman) or was it societal pressure over the decades that has led Dawkins to change his mind (back to his hypocrisy)?| Since I agree with everyone else, no big thing I guess. |
It's as big as any other alleged straw man that's not being used to form public policy, right? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2013 : 09:56:03 [Permalink]
|
| Societal pressure. That's where the anyone comes in. It was a strawman. And yeah to hypocrisy on Dawkins part. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2013 : 08:59:38 [Permalink]
|
| Dawkins doubles down. He's actually making a case for tolerating the sort of "mild pedophilia" he experienced, because he's claiming that making a bigger deal out of it than he did would "belittle" anyone who has suffered "years and years" of abuse. It's "Dear Muslima..." all over again, but this time he's doing it to himself. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2013 : 14:30:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Dawkins doubles down. He's actually making a case for tolerating the sort of "mild pedophilia" he experienced, because he's claiming that making a bigger deal out of it than he did would "belittle" anyone who has suffered "years and years" of abuse. It's "Dear Muslima..." all over again, but this time he's doing it to himself.
|
The abomination of any kind or amount of pedophilia is independent of whatever bitter-sweet nostalgic memories that Dawkins may be daydreaming about in his comfortable later years. If he has the idea in his head that, "Hey, it wasn't really bad for me," then first, I think he's likely wrong even about himself. Second, he should consider that many other little boys and girls have had their whole lives warped and tainted by such kiddie-diddling, great and small. Dawkins has destroyed his credibility on issues of morality and ethics. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1487 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2013 : 14:34:16 [Permalink]
|
| I can understand and relate to Richard Dawkins' position. My SCUBA instructor, James Marshall, mildly/passively approached me over the years, and I was kinda receptive. It's unaccaeptable behavior for him to take advantage of a kid. And I understand Dawkins' differentiation. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2013 : 19:40:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Unbelievable times infinity. Will Richard Dawkins ever make the news again in a good way?[Dawkins] said that he could not condemn the “mild paedophilia” he experienced at boarding school. “I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours,” he says in an interview published today in The Times Magazine.
“Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild paedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today.”
Professor Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist, describes in a new autobiography how a master at his Salisbury prep school “pulled me on to his knee and put his hand inside my shorts”. He writes that the episode was “extremely disagreeable” and that other boys were molested by the same teacher, but concludes: “I don’t think he did any of us any lasting damage.” Greta Christina:[bq][i]It sickens me to think of how statements like this contribute to the shaming and silencing of sexual abuse victims — especially the victims of sexual abuse in childhood. Dawkins is entirely entitled to express his own experience with sexual abuse however he experienced it — but he is absolutely not entitled to tell other victims that their abuse “didn’t do any lasting damage.”
|
How did he say that? Didn't he say he doesn't think it did lasting damage? How is this telling other victims it didn't do damage to them? He didn't seem to try to state as a fact that it did no lasting damage. Not only did he not extend the claim as fact even to his specific peers at his specific school, but he certainly doesn't appear to have even attempted to generalize to all other victims.
With a scientific worldview, I would suspect he would think his thinking on something could well be wrong. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2013 : 19:46:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
The abomination of any kind or amount of pedophilia is independent of whatever bitter-sweet nostalgic memories that Dawkins may be daydreaming about in his comfortable later years. If he has the idea in his head that, "Hey, it wasn't really bad for me," then first, I think he's likely wrong even about himself. |
He's not qualified to judge whether this incident did harm to even himself?! |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2013 : 19:56:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
And racism? (Why the f**k did he have to throw that out, too? In for a foot, in for both feet?) Yes, societal standards have changed on racism, though not as much as they should have. But why should racism of the mid 20th Century be judged even an iota more mildly than it is today? Did the segregationist, lynch mob "standards" of that time have some kind of traditional logic? Of course not -- racism has been a blight in every age and every society where it has raised its ugly head. |
It's a matter of judging the racism or judging the racist. The racism is equally bad, but it is I think easier to understand that one might be racist by growing up with it as a social norm -- it would take courage to break the norm, whereas now, it's not the norm and therefore requires no special strength of character to not be racist.
In any case, I would suspect 50 years from now, something many people think acceptable will have become completely unacceptable. I don't know what it will be, but it would be unwise to think this trend will not continue as it has, I suspect, for as many generations as we have been on a positive trajectory with respect to morality (at least I think it's been mostly a positive trajectory). |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2013 : 22:17:58 [Permalink]
|
Now that I've stayed up until 1am reading all this and many of the links, I am thoroughly depressed. My gawd, I have two daughters! I just want to lock them in a cave somewhere and never let them out.
So, I've never been raped or even close, but almost half of my women friends who I'm close enough to know that sort of thing about have been raped. And most of them have complicated stories like the ones mentioned in the article Dave linked to "When I Didn’t Consent. Why I reported. Why I didn’t." Basically almost all date rapes. None reported to the police. Why would they? How can you prove a date rape is a rape? I mean, the woman is already alone with the guy, probably fooling around so she's lubricated, and if the guy's stronger (which men tend to be) he can force himself on her without all that much difficulty and without causing any injuries beyond what might happen with consensual sex. What exactly is the point of reporting that sort of rape to the police? It seems all that would happen is the accuser being disappointed and maybe humiliated. Certainly no justice would come.
Recently I heard an interview with Amy Schumer that freaked me out a lot. She was asked by the interviewer about her stand up bit where she talks about how we all ("we" meaning women) have been a "little bit raped." She even jokingly suggests that we have a sliding scale for different kinds of rape, or that we call certain milder cases of rape something else, like being "graped".
I thought of Schumer's stand up when Dawkins made his comments about child sexual abuse. I knew Dawkins is actually reaching for a level headed statement that will be helpful. But he went about it the wrong way. Schumer's approach as a comedian allows the audience to laugh at the joke while at the same time she's spreading awareness about the commonness of date rape. She lessens the stigma felt by rape victims while still calling what happened "rape". She makes it easier to discuss calmly. Dawkins just comes off like he's making excuses and calling such abuse no big deal.
I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that the main reason I've never been raped or even "graped" is that I'm a reclusive nerd who is only sexually attracted to passive, feminist men. Back when I was single, the quickest way a guy could put himself in my "no way in hell" category was to hit on me. I've ONLY ever been attracted to guys that I hit on. And I've never really partied. But I think that if in my 20's I were more, well, typical in my preferences with regards to entertainment, socializing, and men, I very well might have gotten date raped. This thought freaks my shit out as a mother of two girls because I'm basically left thinking, "Holy shit, unless they grow up to be reclusive nerds too, they're highly likely to get sexually assaulted!"
I hate this topic. I hate it so much. I don't want to talk about it not because it's uncomfortable, but because as far as I can see, there is no solution (except for the most heinous acts of rape that can be clearly proven and prosecuted). Most rapes are date rapes. Most date rapes boil down to a he said, she said thing. So guys who are prone to date raping have plenty of incentive to keep on raping, and victims actually have really great incentive to pull a Dawkins and convince themselves that what happened was really not that damaging and no big deal. No solution. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2013 : 09:48:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Thanks for talking about this, marf, even though you don't want to.
As I see it, the solution is for everyone to teach their kids to not rape. Consent should probably be a major topic covered in sex ed, both at school and in the home. There are more sexual assaults every year than there are new Hep B, HIV and Syphilis infections put together (PDF), so a consent-oriented slogan ought to be right up there with "wrap that rascal."
|
 |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2013 : 10:14:08 [Permalink]
|
Dave, I'm not so sure that teaching people not to rape is a solution. And before I continue, what I'm really addressing here is a specific kind of rape that I think is the most common - casual date rape. For one thing, I think most guys are going to go with what is the norm among their peers, so I think it makes more sense to try to influence men to confront their peers about this sort of thing rather than parents to confront their kids. Not that parents shouldn't talk to both sons and daughters about this issue, but I doubt it would be as effective as "bros" making it clear to each other that, "It isn't okay." to sleep with a women you meet at a club or party who is completely trashed, and that a woman happy to make out or fool around a bit alone with a man isn't through those actions consenting to have sexual intercourse. I think there are a lot of guys who in their peer groups sit around complaining about women being sexual teases and who reinforce through their conversations among themselves an attitude that if a woman shows up at a club or party dressed super sexy, flirts a lot, and end up alone with a guy fooling around, she is asking for sex. Hell, I once had a guy friend (he isn't my friend anymore incidentally) tell me that he thought teenage girls should be told to avoid fooling around with a teenage boy alone because many boys can't control themselves once they get to "that point." I remember being horrified and confused by this statement since all through high school I engaged in all kinds of intense fooling around alone with boyfriends and yet never had sexual intercourse and was never pressured to have sex. Bottom line is that part of the problem is how rape is defined. Amy Schumer is actually addressing a huge issue with her stand up which I think is why she's gotten a lot of criticism for it. There is a huge chasm between a guy jumping a random woman and violently raping her and a date rape that starts out as a really enjoyable session of making out and heavy petting. How do we talk about the latter without dancing in the much more horrific associations of the former? If seems we need to find a way of talking about it that separates the two extremes enough that we don't have men freaking out at the suggestion that they're a rapist (and then going into offensive mode by attacking the women) and we don't have women freaking out at the suggestion that they are a victim of rape. (A lot of women who have been date raped DO NOT want to call what happened to them "rape." I suppose because it implies weakness or instills a sense of shame. It is much tolerable for a lot of women to think of themselves as having had a bad experience with a guy that turned out to be a jerk. Language matters.)
See, I hate this subject. There is no solution. I'm telling you, no solution. As long as there are kinds of rape that are easy to get away with, there will be those kinds of rapes. A lot of them. I don't know what to think about the Shermer accusation. I can't know the truth. Nobody does except him and his accuser, and even they might have faulty, biased memories. The only solution is for people to just be better. For sex to always be about mutual pleasure and respect, if not love. But I don't see that happening any time soon. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Unbelievable
