Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Act_of_Reparation

(9,116 posts)
41. It necessarily implies responsibility.
Thu Sep 25, 2014, 08:09 AM
Sep 2014

He's telling women that it is their responsibility to abstain from alcohol in the event they are sexually assaulted, and warning them that should they fail to vigilantly adhere to this absurd maxim that they have no right to complain when no one takes their allegations seriously.

You could just as easily -- and (ir)rationally -- argue that all women should carry guns, or learn Aikido, or be accompanied by a bodyguard at all times when going out because doing any of these things might diminish the chances of rape, or at the very least show that they took some precaution beforehand. The fact of the matter is rapists will often target intoxicated victims precisely because of this attitude -- because they know people will assume that if a girl gets drunk to the point of blacking out, that she's practically asking someone to take advantage of her.

Case in point: Steubenville.

Dawkins isn't giving good advice, he's reinforcing the fucking rapists' position. He's transferring responsibility, at least in part, from the criminal to the fucking victim, and creating some bullshit metric by which we determine just how much sympathy we should show rape victims based entirely upon how prepared they were for the eventuality.

Like I said before: Fundamental Attribution Error. It's really easy to criticize people's decisions from 30,000 feet, well after the fact... and even easier, it would seem, to attribute one's misfortunes to internal, dispositional causes than rather looking at the big picture.

But I'm guessing they don't go over that shit in evolutionary biology classes.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

what a crappy article and what a crappy premise ChairmanAgnostic Sep 2014 #1
So that is a fair criticism, but the author at least partially agrees. Warren Stupidity Sep 2014 #4
good points. Thanks for pointing it out. ChairmanAgnostic Sep 2014 #8
Ah, Penn Jillette, one of the stupidest smart guys out there. GoneOffShore Sep 2014 #19
(Dawkins) his tendency to mis-tweet and get hammered and then have to backtrack. AlbertCat Sep 2014 #28
I'm sure many believers hope so. trotsky Sep 2014 #2
As stupid as this all is, there is a bigger point being overlooked JNelson6563 Sep 2014 #3
Indeed. And I don't participate in any of these organized activities. Warren Stupidity Sep 2014 #21
"Not my monkey, not my circus" AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #5
No. Iggo Sep 2014 #6
There's an atheist 'movement'? Who knew? mr blur Sep 2014 #7
they were lapel puns. ChairmanAgnostic Sep 2014 #9
There is something that has conventions. Warren Stupidity Sep 2014 #10
Yeah, you're right, of course, there is a 'movement' mr blur Sep 2014 #12
I'm pretty sure the group baby eating events on youtube don't help. Warren Stupidity Sep 2014 #17
If we weren't meant to eat baby, temporary311 Sep 2014 #24
Darn! I WAS an atheist women, but because there are a few creeps who are also atheists, Arugula Latte Sep 2014 #11
We can't let the religionists affect how we evaluate ourselves. Act_of_Reparation Sep 2014 #13
This is the point of points. defacto7 Sep 2014 #32
"usually named after textiles" trotsky Sep 2014 #35
Shermer made a good point. onager Sep 2014 #14
I disagree, almost entirely Act_of_Reparation Sep 2014 #18
Part of the discussion with the author on the Center for Inquiry podcast Warren Stupidity Sep 2014 #20
That's pretty much spot-on. Act_of_Reparation Sep 2014 #22
No, I'll dispute that... onager Sep 2014 #25
I didn't get that at all from Madison. onager Sep 2014 #23
That doesn't make sense. Act_of_Reparation Sep 2014 #27
Dawkins seems to think we have no right to call taking sexual advantage of an inebriated woman "rape AlbertCat Sep 2014 #30
"If you want to drive, don't get drunk... Act_of_Reparation Sep 2014 #33
I'm all ears. AlbertCat Sep 2014 #39
It necessarily implies responsibility. Act_of_Reparation Sep 2014 #41
"...utter dearth of women in the upper echelons of the "movement..." onager Sep 2014 #36
Maybe we should try listening to them instead of the dismissing them out of hand AlbertCat Sep 2014 #29
"We have listened to them, have we not?" Act_of_Reparation Sep 2014 #34
blaming the victim. AlbertCat Sep 2014 #40
Talked dirty to? Act_of_Reparation Sep 2014 #42
Given that that major world religions are founded on institutionalized misogyny Lordquinton Sep 2014 #15
Misogyny is what keeps women atheists invisible Warpy Sep 2014 #16
fellow unbelievers .... because Jebus told them to. AlbertCat Sep 2014 #31
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater yortsed snacilbuper Sep 2014 #26
My last, no-kidding comment on all this... onager Sep 2014 #37
hell, no. does one corrupt TV preacher discredit all of Christianity? RussBLib Sep 2014 #38
Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»Atheists & Agnostics»Will Misogyny Bring Down ...»Reply #41