Richard Dawkins under fire for comments about rape

Academic and author of The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, has come under public scrutiny after claiming some types of rape are “worse” than others.

A backlash of abuse on Twitter followed a tweet where Dawkins suggested that “mild date rape” is not as bad as violent rape. He goes on to say that anyone who thinks the comparison is an endorsement of date rape should “go away and learn how to think”.

In a preceding tweet, Dawkins attempted to lay the groundwork for his argument by differentiating between “mild pedophilia” [sic] and “violent pedophilia” – framing the provocative statements as a lesson in language and logic.

The Twitter response was swift as users replied to the 73-year-old, accusing him of being a “danger to women” and urging him to “learn compassion”.

Shami Chakrabarti, a spokesperson from The End Violence Against Women Coalition, told The Telegraph that his words were “not merely ignorant but extremely offensive”. “I know there are men of a certain generation who just clunk around on this subject but it’s really not good enough. It sends a very bad signal."

Link

I read this article earlier and am still in disbelief. I cannot fathom how somebody's words can be so misconstrued, and how people can take such great offence at the logical views of another individual. Radical feminists on social media have created a monster out of these comments and it's scary to think where we are headed if their responses are considered reasonable.

Can different types of murder be worse than others? Yes. Can different kinds of assaults be worse than others. Of course. So why is rape any different? Why is the crime of rape so emotionally-charged that logic and reason cannot be utilised when discussing it?

Stories like these only perpetuate the notion that rape is used as a political tool by radical feminists.

When he said these words he was trying to do the impossible, to find logic in such a controversial topic that is (especially in the past few years). I heard a similar case of a NFL football player knocking out his wife (which I DO NOT condone) someone on TSN explained how we need to find ways of preventing this from happening on the mens side and the womens side. He got called out on social media for "victim Blaming" and "women beater".

But I can see why he is being scrutinized on social media, in today's society we need to be very careful what we say. I personally would not have said these things if I were him.

the sheeple need to eat less red meat so they can think rationally. Dawkins is not advocating any type of rape is more acceptable than others just that there is a distinction between violently raping someone and raping someone who is drunk. Both are bad but one has more psychological damage done to the woman than the other. SHEESH

originally posted by: Shepard64
But I can see why he is being scrutinized on social media, in today's society we need to be very careful what we say. I personally would not have said these things if I were him.

But that is what concerns me. It seems we are heading towards a Thought Crime society.

a reply to: Cantbebothered

Hit the Nail Right On! Perfect Explanation.

And who made him the rape expert?

What qualifies him to sit in judgement?

He has a doctorate in biology focusing on evolution and genetics.

Outside that? He can STHFU

[snipped]

a reply to: [post=18214854]Dark Ghost[/post

Yes we are and this is the result of freedom of speech and the internet. People cannot handle hearing things that they disagree with, some can but most can't.

originally posted by: Cantbebothered
the sheeple need to eat less red meat so they can think rationally. Dawkins is not advocating any type of rape is more acceptable than others just that there is a distinction between violently raping someone and raping someone who is drunk. Both are bad but one has more psychological damage done to the woman than the other. SHEESH

Taking advantage of someone who is drunk is pretty despicable, don't you think? By this line of thinking, stealing a car from someone who is drunk is not as bad as wresting the car keys away and stealing a car from someone who is sober. In the end, the car is still stolen.

originally posted by: new_here

originally posted by: Cantbebothered
the sheeple need to eat less red meat so they can think rationally. Dawkins is not advocating any type of rape is more acceptable than others just that there is a distinction between violently raping someone and raping someone who is drunk. Both are bad but one has more psychological damage done to the woman than the other. SHEESH

Taking advantage of someone who is drunk is pretty despicable, don't you think? By this line of thinking, stealing a car from someone who is drunk is not as bad as wresting the car keys away and stealing a car from someone who is sober. In the end, the car is still stolen.

I think you need to read properly what i wrote again. and if you think stealing car keys leaves the same type of psychological damage to a woman as rape does well.................................

a reply to: crazyewok

Just because that was his focus of his studies does not mean is not smart in other fields. The man is nearly 75, he has taken on many projects in his life on human and animal behavior, and I am sure one of them was criminal mentality, including rape, which can fit into evolutionary genetics, in a crude way.

People are far to sensitive now days. They read one thing, and go on a tangent on their blog or somewhere on the internet without thinking that what they just published will be there forever, for the entire world to see. And others with the same views will back them up.

Dawkin's is the type of person to say something and for any logical person it will take a few minutes to digest what he has said, and you will realize it makes sense.
He's just simply implying that 'date rape' is different from brutal rape which involves force, generally including violence. But i am sure if you ask him the question "Do you consider them both rape?" He will answer yes, so what's the problem?

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Why did he feel the need to tweet these sentiments to start with?

I think the most telling part is his response:

“What I have learned today is that there are people on Twitter who think in absolutist terms, to an extent I wouldn’t have believed possible.”

Really? This is coming from a man who's magnum opus is "The God Delusion"- if that's not absolutist then I'm not here. Sure he is a good wordsmith but you can smell this mans arrogance from a mile away, but In his defense he shouldn't have got the knee jerk reactions he received because he never condoned or encouraged these acts.

At the end of the day you'll either love him or hate him. IMO he's been riding the coat tails of the God Delusion for a long time now and he seems to think that every word that comes out of his mouth is gospel.

a reply to: crazyewok

Lol, [snip] Waffle.lol (new word to add for you.lol)

a reply to: strongfp

Yeah what he says is logical.

But he is still a [snipped]

He can be right but it doesn't mean I have to like or respect the way he says things. Nor to I recognise him as the be all or end all of knowledge.

But hey I forget he is a messiah to some of you people

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: strongfp


But hey I forget he is a messiah to some of you people

So that's what it all comes down too?
You think he is the leader of Atheists? How ignorant of a statement.

He's only been labeled as such by theists, not by atheists. There is a big difference there.

And you attacked his name, and cause, even going as far as name calling. If you do not agree with his logical thinking and science then please, prove him wrong.

originally posted by: crazyewok
And who made him the rape expert?

What qualifies him to sit in judgement?

He's a human being with an opinion. That's all the qualification he needs to say something. You can agree or disagree, but there's not a damn thing wrong with voicing one's opinion. He doesn't claim to be an expert and I don't see how he was judging anyone.

People need to get a life. This outrage over others' words is crazy. Everyone's always analyzing every word to find something to get outraged about.

Now, if he'd said that women ask for rape or something, I can see people getting upset - and would agree with them - still he'd be just voicing his opinion.

a reply to: strongfp

See

You militant defence of him just shows how hypocritical the "militant" atheist movement is

And you attacked his name

sound like some religious extremists claiming blasphemy for using the lords name in vain here HAHA

and cause,

Cause what cause? Sounds like a religion to me !

A true atheists shouldn't give a dam what people believe or don't believe as long as its not forced on them.

Never said I disagreed with his scientific ideas myself. Quote me were I said I did? No? Cant find it? THEN LEARN TO READ!

What I said is I AGREED with most of what he says.

I JUST DONT LIKE HIM


You can agree with someone and still think they are a utter [snipped].

As for proving him wrong?

As I said I agree with a lot of what he said. I just dont like the man.

For the stuff I dont agree with? Well Im a Human biologist focusing on microbiology and immunology and unlike Dawkins who likes to comment out side his expertise (like on what rape is) Im not arrogant enough to assume Im expert enough to debate with him on Human and genealogy evolution which I have limited education on and have never studied.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Yeah he gots the rights to say what he likes.


But I got the right to think he as a person is a dick head.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

But that is what concerns me. It seems we are heading towards a Thought Crime society.

Very dangerous times. Orwell was right, as he usually was.

The same goes for someone who was initially charged for a crime, but was proven innocent. The stigma, just by the very association to the crime, however remote it may have been, remains within perspective. Nowadays, association, rather than actual guilt, is enough to have people condemn you. This is the result of a mind-centric society.

I am no fan of Dawkins...

HOWEVER

As a woman who has been sexually assaulted, I have to agree with him here.

For example...How can you say that two college kids who are drunk, he is misreading her signals and goes further than she wanted is on the same level as someone who nabs a woman off the street, tortures and rapes her and leaves her for dead?

All rape is bad. Dawkins would agree with that. But people get bent out of shape when we try to say there are differing degrees of bad.

The old guy might be stirring the pot to get some publicity. It worked. I still disagree with much of what he stands for, but on this issue I have to side with him.

a reply to: crazyewok

But I [have] the right to think he as a person is a dick head.

Perhaps a little too over-concerned with a non-issue. He also has the right to be arrogant. You can sue him or you can parade about yelling it, but I don't think anyone really cares.