A frustrating thing that happens when you are trying to express righteous feminist anger at a situation or subject is being told how you should react, and what would warrant a more passionate reaction. You, it seems, rarely manage to pick the right cause to get worked up about. You need someone to help you, someone with a science background maybe. Who believes only in their own highly evolved thought process. Someone with a mind that likes to organise and rank things. Someone with a Twitter account. Someone who can succinctly rank the tough subjects other people might not touch, such as paedophilia or rape. Of course Richard Dawkins's name had come up before I even made a list of requirements and fortunately he's already stepped up with several tweets informing us what kind of paedophilia and rape crimes we should be more upset by.
It's hard to know quite what prompted Dawkins to take to Twitter and finally announce that: "Mild paedophilia is bad. Violent paedophilia is worse. If you think that's an endorsement of mild paedophilia, go away and learn how to think." Before anyone had a chance to go away and learn to think like Richard Dawkins he tweeted: "Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse. If you think that's an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how to think."
Turns out Dawkins is not simply a deeply unpleasant man who defends his intolerances with a dedication to logic, but a man trying to teach us about syllogism. Why did he pick those subjects? Meh, to be edgy. For the retweets maybe? Even if the tweets aren't endorsements of types of rape and paedophilia, they are a form of dismissal of types of rape and paedophila (unless I have not learned how to think yet).
Turns out Dawkins is not simply a deeply unpleasant man who defends his intolerances with a dedication to logic, but a man trying to teach us about syllogism. Why did he pick those subjects? Meh, to be edgy. For the retweets maybe? Even if the tweets aren't endorsements of types of rape and paedophilia, they are a form of dismissal of types of rape and paedophila (unless I have not learned how to think yet).
| The tweets naturally were met with both agreement and fury. Many were sceptical about the apparent ranking of crime but Dawkins responded with a tweet that 'parodied' the responses he disagreed with: "'Stealing £1 is bad. Stealing an old lady's life savings is worse.' How DARE you rank them? Stealing is stealing. You're vile, appalling." | As a society we don't seem to think violence against women and girls is either A) all that serious or B) so bad. |
Is that a big deal? Can we not understand the concept of hypothetical arguments? Yes we can. The issue is that so many survivors of these crimes are not believed and so many perpetrators are protected by such statements, however they intended.
But let's be scientific here and crack out a little evidence as to why it matters that Dawkins chose these as examples. As a society we don't seem to think violence against women and girls is either A) all that serious or B) so bad.
There is the case of David Ruffley MP to be considered when we wonder if we take VAWG seriously. Earlier this year, in March, Ruffley received a caution from the police for common assault on his former partner. The press didn't seem to particularly go wild (not even the tabloids, in spite of his surname being a Godsend for any 'ruffed up' headlines) for the story and a Conservative party spokesperson said: "This matter was investigated by police and dealt with by them at the time." Lalala, business as usual, everybody get on with your work.
Since the incident a petition in Ruffley's constituency has gathered over 40,000 calling for him to stand down. The Dean of St Edmundsbury cathedral, the Very Revd Dr Frances Ward also asked that the MP reconsider his position and even felt he had to remind him of "seriousness of the assault". Perhaps the Conservative party need reminding too.
Four or so months later Ruffley has now announced he will be standing down in 2015, announcing in a letter that he had hoped to move on from the "very regrettable incident", which he apologised for.
To say the reaction of the Tories was laid back here is an understatement. That they clearly did not think this might be an embarrassing matter goes to show how pointless the Cameron's cuties heavy reshuffle was, and why so many think Dawkins seemingly ranking rape crimes is an acceptable practise. Because if we don't rank trauma, how can we rank sympathy?
Squeamish Kate
But let's be scientific here and crack out a little evidence as to why it matters that Dawkins chose these as examples. As a society we don't seem to think violence against women and girls is either A) all that serious or B) so bad.
There is the case of David Ruffley MP to be considered when we wonder if we take VAWG seriously. Earlier this year, in March, Ruffley received a caution from the police for common assault on his former partner. The press didn't seem to particularly go wild (not even the tabloids, in spite of his surname being a Godsend for any 'ruffed up' headlines) for the story and a Conservative party spokesperson said: "This matter was investigated by police and dealt with by them at the time." Lalala, business as usual, everybody get on with your work.
Since the incident a petition in Ruffley's constituency has gathered over 40,000 calling for him to stand down. The Dean of St Edmundsbury cathedral, the Very Revd Dr Frances Ward also asked that the MP reconsider his position and even felt he had to remind him of "seriousness of the assault". Perhaps the Conservative party need reminding too.
Four or so months later Ruffley has now announced he will be standing down in 2015, announcing in a letter that he had hoped to move on from the "very regrettable incident", which he apologised for.
To say the reaction of the Tories was laid back here is an understatement. That they clearly did not think this might be an embarrassing matter goes to show how pointless the Cameron's cuties heavy reshuffle was, and why so many think Dawkins seemingly ranking rape crimes is an acceptable practise. Because if we don't rank trauma, how can we rank sympathy?
Squeamish Kate
RSS Feed