Dear Peter Hitchens,
I know dear, I know. The modern world is so very strange, isn't it? Not so many years ago you left a woman alone, you knew what she would be doing; cooking or giving birth. But in these distressing times of so-called 'equality' (or, as you so incisively put it, "hysterical ultra-feminist propaganda") they're even allowed to leave the house by themselves and sweet Jesus alone knows what they get up to out of the reach of your protective gaze. Except we do know what happens to them, don't we? The silly little girls have one too many and end up getting themselves raped by some poor lad who is just as unable as you to equate serious intoxication with the inability to consent. I mean, consent! Who bothered about that in your day?
I can only assume this confusion is at the heart of your recent article expressing shock and dismay that women have been known to complain about this:
A rape victim who was drunk deserves less sympathy.Of course she is culpable, just as she would be culpable if she crashed a car and injured someone while drunk, or stepped out into the traffic while drunk and was run over.
There there. I know it's difficult to grasp the ever-shifting spheres of modern morality. I sympathise. Only last week I was told off for punching a pensioner in the face because she was standing where I wanted to be. Who knew? I mean, she didn't tell me not to. Not loudly enough, anyway.
But, because I'd hate for any future article of yours on the subject to be misconstrued by the "feminist thought police" as the breathtakingly misogynistic, unforgivably poorly-researched work of an astonishingly ignorant rape-apologist, so here's a handy list of some other things that are not, I repeat not, responsible for a woman's rape:
Bacardi Breezers
Being a mathematician
Lipstick
Post-It notes in unorthodox colours
Al-Qaeda
Excessive consumption of microwave meals for one
Standing next to a man on the tube
Liking experimental jazz
Not having a boyfriend
Having too many boyfriends
Communism
Supporting a team other than Britain in the Olympic cycling
It being a bit hot out
Wanton use of unusually advanced vocabulary
The credit crunch
Ill-advised hen night accessories
Hillary Clinton
Making butterscotch Angel Delight in a way not mentioned in the Serving Suggestions
Reading a broadsheet
The 73 night bus to Walthamstow
The woman
I trust this clears up any doubt.
Love,
Jack xxx
Finally, the law has changed. Sadly, people's views seem to be slower to step into line.
I mean, the British cycling thing is questionable. But the rest, sure, don't exactly 'invite' rape.
posted by Raz : 19 August 2008
But they were really PRETTY Post-its... no?
Awww man...
(and seriously, I don't think I'd tire of punching people like him in the face, with a jaggy brick, whilst he's getting his bollocks electrocuted)
(note: I am not vicious, all the time).
posted by Gordon : 19 August 2008
Actually, having re-read the article (skimmed it first time), I'd like to apologise for even attempting to (badly) use humour.
It's been a while since I perused the Daily Mail but... holy god, I'm ashamed to be the same sex as that out-dated arsehole.
Yours, genuinely shocked and appalled.
G
posted by Gordon : 19 August 2008
Let us not forget that Peter himself is the result of an anal rape which went horribly wrong. It must have come as a terrible shock to his mother 616 days later when, believing herself to be suffering from a particularly nasty bout of diarrhoea, she found the little turd competently swimming around the toilet bowl, his unibrow already clearly distinguishable. Whether or not she was drunk at the time of the rape, I think we should all feel immense sympathy for her.
posted by Edvard Moonke : 20 August 2008
Surely the state of the women is irrelevant. Surely all that matters is consent. Being too drunk to say yes is not consent.
That's why bars are meant to not serve drunk people. Because they are too drunk to make an informed decision.
And why tattoo shops are not meant to pierce or tattoo drunk people.
Is it that hard to say "If you're not sure, don't'". And generally if you're not sure that consent is given, surely that should be a hint to you that you shouldn't".
Idiot.
posted by Adrian : 20 August 2008
Thank you!
I was so riled up after reading that so thank you for debunking all his ridiculous arguments and having me in hysterics at the same time.
posted by terese : 20 August 2008
Adrian: Because of course the person one is having sex with while drunk will always comply with what one says.
Spot on, Jack.
posted by Cerebelle : 20 August 2008
Oh dear, you've been reading the Daily Mail again... don't you know it's not for reading? It's decorative bathroom stationery, only featuring articles like the one you describe in an attempt to cure chronic piles (something to do with wiping your behind with a certain page, there's some science behind it I'm told and I believe that is the only purpose for whihc Mr Hitchens's articles are ever commissioned).
posted by Ariel : 20 August 2008
i occasionally visit your blog and although this post is very distressing, i will take the opportunity to let my sons, (four of them 18 - 28) read this article, and then we will talk about it. i have no doubt that their reaction will be no different than yours or mine.
posted by margie kardash : 21 August 2008
Good lord, I never even noticed you were here! I shall link to you directly. Hello again!
posted by Robyn : 1 September 2008
Thank-you Jack - this is a well informed and articulate response to such an outrageous set of opinions, a breath of fresh air!
posted by Trillian : 2 September 2008
Hi, did you email this to him? Did he reply? He usually does.
posted by Philipa : 8 September 2008
Oh, now come on Jack. This is exactly the sort of response we have come to expect from members of the "feminist thought police" such as yourself. How can we expect poor men such as Peter to be able to resist forcing himself upon a woman if she has been stupid enough to drink some wine? I mean, what man can resist a drunken, slurring girl who can barely stand up? It is too much to ask, surely. Then we pay money to the girl? My God, this is practically Government-funded prostitution!
Now, if you'll excuse me I am off to dress provocatively and walk around for the pleasure of Peter and his Rohypnol army.
posted by Léonie : 17 September 2008
Hi there Jack, I see this post is a month old but weigh in I will anyway. The thing that really struck me about this issue when it broke was that no one has mentioned even the possibility of, say, increasing the rapist's sentence if HE was drunk! That is, in any way punishing him for committing the irresponsible act of putting himself in a state of diminished responsibility.
Having said that, I think probably the law should butt out of whether people have been drinking - which is at least for the moment still perfectly legal - and just stick to the bits that are, in fact, covered in statute.
Anyway. As you may know, the level of rape convictions has fallen so drastically over the years that where it was "only" (sic) about a third in the 80s it is now standing at 5%! So there's little point worrying about what will happen to the rapist, because the answer is probably nothing.
Excellent post.
posted by Ms Baroque : 21 September 2008