Sorry to hear you're feeling down sploatee.
And those are some fantastic photographs, H. Protagonist!
Fuuuuu...Richard Dawkins is being such an
ass. Sorry, I need to rant about it.
(Warning ahead - he's talking about rape again on Twitter and being incredibly obtuse. He's like an American republican; it's like he just can't help himself.)
.
.
.
.
.
Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins · Sep 12
"Officer, it's not my fault I was drunk driving. You see, somebody got me drunk."
Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins · Sep 12
.@MhaskarChief With a certain kind of feminist, of course. Not with feminists who truly respect women instead of patronising them as victims
Retweeted by Richard Dawkins
Miranda Celeste Hale @mirandachale · Sep 12
@MhaskarChief @SetagayaGirl @RichardDawkins But radical feminism is now mainstream feminism.And so many ppl are afraid to confront it, sadly
Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins · Sep 13
.@Jachra No, she MAY have been raped. If so, totally appalling. But it's her word against his and she admits she was too drunk to REMEMBER.
Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins · 23h
.@dashcroftGIS It's still her word against his. Drunk in charge of competence to testify against him is like drunk in charge of a car.
Retweeted by Richard Dawkins
Tina @TinaWillows · 23h
@lemoncayke @RichardDawkins If you can't remember you can't testify: Fact. Blame is neither here nor there, simple fact.
Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins · 23h
.@mrgregariously Exactly. If you want to drive, don't get drunk. If you want to be in a position to testify & jail a man, don't get drunk.
Retweeted by Richard Dawkins
rabiesbun @rabiesbun · 22h
Poor @RichardDawkins having to deal with "feelies" instead of reasonable arguments.
Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins · 22h
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."
Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins · 21h
Don't EVER rape anyone, drunk or sober. But also, don't accuse anyone of a crime if you can't remember what happened (& no other evidence).
*sigh*. Guess what, Dawkins?
1) It's not the onus of the victim to decide whether or not there's enough evidence for a conviction - he or she has
every damned right to report if they believe they've been assaulted (since it's up to the police/detective team/prosecution/judge/+ to gather the evidence and decide whether there's enough for a conviction).
2) Being too drunk to remember is also being too drunk to consent to sex. Fancy that.
3) Using alcohol as a tool to make their victims vulnerable is precisely how serial predators tend to behave - Dawkins is completely removing that culpability and putting all of the blame on the victims. In fact, discouraging women from coming forward because they were "too drunk to remember," and shaming them for being drunk, is a great way to make sure that serial rapists can keep hurting other people!
4) The idea that women can always just jail a man (FFS, it wouldn't even be
them doing the jailing - again, that's the legal system) on a whim is laughable. The probability of this happening is tiny compared to the converse (ie. that rapists get away with their crimes, time and time again).
Why the hell do people keep holding this guy up as a bastion of logic? I used to have a lot of respect for him as a scientific thinker, having read many of his books on evolution and genetics. But every new thing I hear from him these days on anything not to do with science is dismissive, shoddily reasoned and obtuse as hell. And when people call him out on his crap, he defaults to this horribly smug attitude: "What I said was stupid and hurtful? But, but, but I'm
so logical - you fuzzy-brained ladies (and gents) are obviously thinking with your feelings!"