I don't know whether any of you have seen this but Richard Dawkins has been touting his unique brand of belligerence on Twitter. He was trying to apply logical principles to the subject of rape and child sexual abuse. Rather than summarise what he said, his exact words were...
"X is bad. Y is worse. If you think that’s an endorsement of X, go away and don’t come back until you’ve learned how to think logically.”
“Mild pedophilia is bad. Violent pedophilia is worse. If you think that’s an endorsement of mild pedophilia, go away and learn how to think.”
“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.”
“Whether X or Y is worse is a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of LOGIC that to express that opinion doesn’t mean you approve of either.”
(@RichardDawkins 29.07.2014).
This kind of statement glosses over the fact that rape and abuse are inherently violent crimes - that is to say, a person has been violated. A crime carried out with physical violence may be shocking in its brutality, but it isn't "worse." Perhaps Dawkins, and others who think this way, seemingly forget that the majority of these crimes are carried out by someone known to the victim; the betrayal of trust involved serving only to heighten incomprehension and distress.
This kind of 'logic' creates something of a 'hierarchy of legitimate hurt,' within which, the experience of the victim is completely erased. It is instead for the observer to apply a pinch of 'logic' and no doubt a punch of 'objectivity' to the situation, to determine the severity of the crime. There is a sense (to me) that victims of 'non violent' rape or abuse should perhaps be thankful that the crime they experienced wasn't 'worse;' that their legitimate feelings of say, outrage, anger and hurt should be put away on the grounds that others have it so much worse.
It is clear to me that he doesn't understand what sexual violence is. Employing myth and misconception, he bases his argument on the false premise that rape and abuse have a sliding scale of severity. He erases the voices and experience of victims, attempting to minimise the impact of any rape not carried out by a stranger at knifepoint. (You know, the objectively 'bad' kind of rape.) Considering how many of these crimes are carried out much closer to home, by family members, friends, co-workers and acquaintances, well that's an awful lot of erasure going on.
Interestingly, in the case of murder, the outcome for the victim forms pretty much the entire basis of the crime. It being murder, the victim has inevitably died, regardless of whether their killer injected them with a painless overdose of morphine as they slept, or battered them to death with a lead pipe. As such, the legal system differentiates on the basis of intent (premeditation), in addition to the degree of violence used. I accept that the relative degree of suffering is considered, along with possible mitigation, but my point is really that I doubt anyone would suggest to the grieving family of the overdose victim that 'it could have been worse, they could have been battered to death with a lead pipe!' Which is what Dawkins' "logical" position implicitly suggests to victims of rape and paedophilia. I mean, is there really such a thing as 'mild paedophilia?' He may not be endorsing these things, but he's minimising their impact.
Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised; Dawkins is a scientist. My own field of research (mental health) highlights the way women and children have been systematically silenced and disregarded for centuries. Pre- 'enlightenment' attitudes that liken women and children to animals thanks to them being inherently irrational, to modern day gendered psychiatric diagnoses (often handed out to the victims of abuse which Dawkins dismisses as less 'serious'), science has a less than glorious history when it comes to women and children being seen or heard.
Perhaps, as someone who values the role of 'evidence,' Dawkins could acquaint himself with the research evidence detailing the long term consequences of rape and child sexual abuse. Perhaps he could even learn to think a bit 'illogically' and develop some compassion?
