Privilege In A Nutshell (Or, There You Go Again, Richard Dawkins)

Richard Dawkins

Srsly, WTF?

In a recent interview with the Times magazine, Richard Dawkins attempted to defend what he called “mild pedophilia,” which, he says, he personally experienced as a young child and does not believe causes “lasting harm.”

Dawkins went on to say that one of his former school masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts,” and that to condemn this “mild touching up” as sexual abuse today would somehow be unfair.

Wait — it gets better:

“I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today… .”

Judging by his response to Dawkins’ obtuse, it’s-not-rape-rape-amirite vapidity, Peter Watt, director of child protection at the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, clearly recognizes the value in wearing a fresh pair of Cap’n Obvs undies:

“Mr. Dawkins seems to think that because a crime was committed a long time ago we should judge it in a different way,” Watt said. “But we know that the victims of sexual abuse suffer the same effects whether it was 50 years ago or yesterday.”

Indeed. For someone who has steadfastly claimed the mantle of elevated reason as his demonstrative trademark, Richard Dawkins seems to cavalierly ejaculate his neuroses — and, especially, his wholly unchecked privilege — all over the face of the body politic rather frequently and with little regard for the outcome.

Though I’m certain the good doctor believes it to be but a mild violation. Natch.


Update: The full interview, liberated by Dawkins’ site from behind the Great Wall of Murdoch, compounds previously-excerpted remarks with until-now undisclosed gems such as this:

“Although I’m no friend of the Church, I think they have become victims of our shifting standards and we do need to apply the conventions of the good historian in dealing with cases which are many decades old.”

Which nicely dovetails with prior downward-spiral statements from Dawkins re: systemic Papal abuse (shorter: God-bothering > buggery):

‘Horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place.’

Yeah. Fuck this guy.

2 thoughts on “Privilege In A Nutshell (Or, There You Go Again, Richard Dawkins)

  1. Little, if anything, surprises me about Richard Dawkins. He gives scientists a bad name as far as I am concerned. He speaks without respect of anyone with whom he disagrees and has little notion that people of all beliefs, even scientists, can be wrong.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s