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 General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

muriel_volestrangler

(101,470 posts)
44. The interview, and a short excerpt from the autobiography:
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:44 AM
Sep 2013
He says he’s pleased how things have changed on the harassment front in the past 40 years. But on other occasions when that shifting moral zeitgeist rears its head – as boys, including him, are molested or beaten at his various boarding schools, for instance – he fails to be outraged. One master at his public school, Oundle, he writes, “was prone to fall in love with the prettier boys. He never, as far as we knew, went any further than to put an arm around them in class and make suggestive remarks, but nowadays that would probably be enough to land him in terrible trouble with the police – and tabloid-inflamed vigilantes.”

Is he guilty of rationalising bad stuff just because it’s past? “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 paedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today.”

The mention of paedophilia inevitably brings us to the recent run of arrests of old white men accused of child sex abuse, starting with Jimmy Savile. Has the moral zeitgeist been shifting at their expense? “I think we should acknowledge it. That’s one point… But the other point is that because the most notorious cases of paedophilia involve rape and even murder, and because we attach the label ‘paedophilia’ to the same things when they’re just mild touching up, we must beware of lumping all paedophiles into the same bracket.”
...
Back at Chafyn Grove I would watch games of squash from the gallery, waiting for the game to end so I could slip down and practise by myself. One day – I must have been about 11 – there was a master in the gallery with me. He pulled me onto his knee and put his hand inside my shorts. He did no more than have a little feel, but it was extremely disagreeable (the cremasteric reflex is not painful, but in a skin-crawling, creepy way it is almost worse than painful) as well as embarrassing. As soon as I could wriggle off his lap, I ran to tell my friends, many of whom had had the same experience with him. I don’t think he did any of us any lasting damage, but some years later he killed himself. The atmosphere at morning prayers told us that something was up even before [the headmaster] Gallows made his grim announcement, and one of the woman teachers was crying. Many years later in Oxford, a large bishop sat next to me at high table in New College. I recognised his name. He had been the (ah me, much smaller then) curate at St Mark’s church, to which Chafyn Grove marched in crocodile for matins every Sunday, and he was evidently in touch with the gossip. He told me that the same woman teacher had been hopelessly in love with the paedophile master who had killed himself. None of us had ever guessed.


http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_articles/2013/9/7/the-world-according-to-richard-dawkins-the-times#


I don't think his "different standards" claim holds water. If, 60 years ago, a teacher putting his hand down the shorts of a boy had become known, it still would have been held to be an outrage - it is not like caning, which was accepted. And he "doesn't think" the others suffered damage, but he really has no way of knowing that - I doubt he kept up with all them (and he knows 'many' of his friends suffered it too - he doesn't know how many boys that he didn't know well also did, or if some kept quiet because more had happened), or that they would all have opened up to him at all stages of their life for him to know it never affected them.

Yes, I think he is guilty of making excuses. The Roman Catholic church has tried it, and it doesn't work - there really wasn't a point where it was OK for authority figures, whether teachers or priests, to grope children sexually.
Saw this one earlier. longship Sep 2013 #1
Yeah, PZ really laid into him over this. rug Sep 2013 #2
The title makes it seem like Dawkins did it instead of forgiving those that do coldmountain Sep 2013 #4
Just to clarify further, he seems to be dismissing it as not a real problem, cbayer Sep 2013 #5
Exactly. And he has a history of doing that. Crunchy Frog Sep 2013 #49
Link to PZ Myers piece on this: cbayer Sep 2013 #6
Is he purposefully flaming out or does he thrive on creating outrage. cbayer Sep 2013 #3
Interestingly, it's not pedophilia alone he minimizes, but the scandals themselves. rug Sep 2013 #7
This is what he wrote in The God Delusion cbayer Sep 2013 #13
Hmm, I'll have to think on that one. rug Sep 2013 #15
He is saying what is true for him. ZombieHorde Sep 2013 #8
Or putting the hand down the pants in the first place is sort of ok. rug Sep 2013 #9
He was talking about past standards versus modern standard. ZombieHorde Sep 2013 #11
He's 72. The standards he tolerates are at best only 60 years old. rug Sep 2013 #12
Yes, that is why he used the term "decades." nt ZombieHorde Sep 2013 #16
In the same sentence ha said 18th century. rug Sep 2013 #17
Yes, he started with a commonly accepted premise, ZombieHorde Sep 2013 #18
All to express a mild disapproval. rug Sep 2013 #20
Yes. nt ZombieHorde Sep 2013 #23
Well, gee. okasha Sep 2013 #26
If you care to accept arguments from authority, feel free skepticscott Sep 2013 #58
As far as I know, sexual fondling of children by adults has never been acceptable Crunchy Frog Sep 2013 #50
Where has Dawkins said skepticscott Sep 2013 #60
Incorrect. He says he knows this particular person did it to others and he doesn't cbayer Sep 2013 #10
He stated it as an opinion about people he personally knows. ZombieHorde Sep 2013 #14
I think you are defending the indefensible here, ZH. cbayer Sep 2013 #22
I was molested too... Silent3 Sep 2013 #45
There are lots of people who have been molested and suffer no irreparable harm. cbayer Sep 2013 #46
Minimizing and denying the consequences chervilant Sep 2013 #51
You see, that's just what I mean Silent3 Sep 2013 #53
Now see, that's just what I DIDN'T do... chervilant Sep 2013 #59
You're telling me I'm implicitly blaming others... Silent3 Sep 2013 #61
Nope, wrong again. chervilant Sep 2013 #62
So you're blaming and attacking the victim here? skepticscott Sep 2013 #24
Yes. Yes he is. 2ndAmForComputers Sep 2013 #33
She skepticscott Sep 2013 #34
His words suggest Dawkins is, if not condoning, tolerating the perpetrators. rug Sep 2013 #35
Yes, rather like all of those people raped by priests skepticscott Sep 2013 #36
You're late with that canard. rug Sep 2013 #37
The question is skepticscott Sep 2013 #39
No, the question is, do you defend the term "mild pedophilia"? rug Sep 2013 #40
So you're going to keep attacking him skepticscott Sep 2013 #41
So you're going to keep defending his view of "mild pedophilia"? rug Sep 2013 #42
I doubt you can even give a coherent explanation skepticscott Sep 2013 #63
Defend it. Go on. rug Sep 2013 #64
Where have I defended anything? skepticscott Sep 2013 #65
Oh, you don't defend the statement? Good. Now reject it. rug Sep 2013 #66
As expected skepticscott Sep 2013 #67
I'm not playing your games. Those are his words and they're patent. rug Sep 2013 #68
Elton John libodem Sep 2013 #19
I'm not going to minimize it. rug Sep 2013 #21
It is a very tough subject to discuss rationally libodem Sep 2013 #25
I do agree that it's a sensitive subject. rug Sep 2013 #28
If it's not a problem Politicalboi Sep 2013 #27
What a guy shenmue Sep 2013 #29
Oh dear Dicky, Dicky, Dicky! Looks like you came a real cropper this time. Starboard Tack Sep 2013 #30
Why is he speaking for others? "any of us"? NT Trillo Sep 2013 #31
the same reason hundreds of shitheads converged around not-Ground Zero in 2010 MisterP Sep 2013 #56
What is mild pedophilia? Sounds creepy. hrmjustin Sep 2013 #32
It is beyond creepy. He has also made excuses for the heinous crimes of the RCC. cbayer Sep 2013 #38
And again, it helps to take these kinds of remarks in context. backscatter712 Sep 2013 #43
The interview, and a short excerpt from the autobiography: muriel_volestrangler Sep 2013 #44
I am not going to excuse his comments LostOne4Ever Sep 2013 #47
Richard Dawkins has been losing it for awhile. Crunchy Frog Sep 2013 #48
what he's steadily losing is his reputation, current and posthumous carolinayellowdog Sep 2013 #52
If you want to know about some of the issues with their conferences Crunchy Frog Sep 2013 #54
The money line: okasha Sep 2013 #57
+1 cbayer Sep 2013 #55
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Richard Dawkins under fir...»Reply #44