Sky News’ Stephen Dixon Slammed For Suggesting Women Take ‘Personal Responsibility’ For Sexual Assault

A Sky News presenter has faced a torrent of criticism for appearing to suggest that women who are drunk and wearing short skirts should take “personal responsiblity” if they are sexually assaulted.

Speaking on Sky News’ Sunrise, Stephen Dixon raised the issue while discussing new research from the Fawcett Society on sexism.

He highlighted the statistic that 38% of all men and 34% of all women believe that if a woman goes out late at night, wearing a short skirt, gets drunk and is then the victim of a sexual assault, she is totally or partially to blame.

Dixon then asked: “Is it a dreadful thing to say if women are out in short skirts and drunk that they don’t need to take any personal responsibility?”

Sarah Churchwell, a professor of American literature at the University of London, responded: “Let me ask you a question. You’re walking down the street and you get punched in the face. Are you responsible for having left your house?”

Outraged, Churchwell explained to him: “It is not provocative to drink. It is not provocative to wear what women choose to wear. It’s not about provoking behaviour. They are choosing what they wish to wear.”

Weather presenter Nazaneen Ghaffar told Churchwell that she believed women wore short skirts because they wanted “to look sexy”.

Churchwell replied: “Sure but that doesn’t mean you need to be sexually assaulted. It doesn’t mean you provoked it. It doesn’t mean you deserved it. It’s about not blaming victims. It’s about recognising that when somebody is assaulted, the person responsible for that assault is the person who committed the assault not the person who was assaulted. It’s a very, very simple proposition.

“It’s only when we’re talking about sexual assault that we ever suggest that the person who was assaulted was responsible for having been assaulted and I do think that’s objectionable.”


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/sky-news-stephen-dixon-slammed-for-suggesting-women-should-take-personal-responsiblity-if-they-are-drunk-and-wearing-a-short-skirt_uk_5881f902e4b0f94bb3039026?utm_hp_ref=uk


Why are some men, such idiots?

Thorin wrote:A Sky News presenter has faced a torrent of criticism for appearing to suggest that women who are drunk and wearing short skirts should take “personal responsiblity” if they are sexually assaulted.

Speaking on Sky News’ Sunrise, Stephen Dixon raised the issue while discussing new research from the Fawcett Society on sexism.

He highlighted the statistic that 38% of all men and 34% of all women believe that if a woman goes out late at night, wearing a short skirt, gets drunk and is then the victim of a sexual assault, she is totally or partially to blame.

Dixon then asked: “Is it a dreadful thing to say if women are out in short skirts and drunk that they don’t need to take any personal responsibility?”

Sarah Churchwell, a professor of American literature at the University of London, responded: “Let me ask you a question. You’re walking down the street and you get punched in the face. Are you responsible for having left your house?”

Outraged, Churchwell explained to him: “It is not provocative to drink. It is not provocative to wear what women choose to wear. It’s not about provoking behaviour. They are choosing what they wish to wear.”

Weather presenter Nazaneen Ghaffar told Churchwell that she believed women wore short skirts because they wanted “to look sexy”.

Churchwell replied: “Sure but that doesn’t mean you need to be sexually assaulted. It doesn’t mean you provoked it. It doesn’t mean you deserved it. It’s about not blaming victims. It’s about recognising that when somebody is assaulted, the person responsible for that assault is the person who committed the assault not the person who was assaulted. It’s a very, very simple proposition.

“It’s only when we’re talking about sexual assault that we ever suggest that the person who was assaulted was responsible for having been assaulted and I do think that’s objectionable.”


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/sky-news-stephen-dixon-slammed-for-suggesting-women-should-take-personal-responsiblity-if-they-are-drunk-and-wearing-a-short-skirt_uk_5881f902e4b0f94bb3039026?utm_hp_ref=uk


Why are some men, such idiots?

pot kettle

He is an utter dickhead.

Any man who sexually assaults any woman is to blame 100%, there are no grey areas...she is innocent, he is guilty, end of.

Women however have a responsibility to take care of themselves. Don't go out walking alone at night in deserted areas, don't get so drunk you cant look after yourself.
If you get assaulted that's not your fault, but you are a lot less likely to be attacked if you have your wits about you, it's common sense.

I was watching while at my mums this morning - i think he is out of order .

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:I was watching while at my mums this morning - i think he is out of order .

So do I Dibs, welcome back by the way

Syl wrote:He is an utter dickhead.

Any man who sexually assaults any woman is to blame 100%, there are no grey areas...she is innocent, he is guilty, end of.

Women however have a responsibility to take care of themselves. Don't go out walking alone at night in deserted areas, don't get so drunk you cant look after yourself.
If you get assaulted that's not your fault, but you are a lot less likely to be attacked if you have your wits about you, it's common sense.

I agree with Syl but add, a woman should not lead a geeza on and when action is in progress changes her mind or lies about afterwards.

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:I was watching while at my mums this morning - i think he is out of order .

Hey Vod - welcome back - I've missed you!

Major wrote:

Syl wrote:He is an utter dickhead.

Any man who sexually assaults any woman is to blame 100%, there are no grey areas...she is innocent, he is guilty, end of.

Women however have a responsibility to take care of themselves. Don't go out walking alone at night in deserted areas, don't get so drunk you cant look after yourself.
If you get assaulted that's not your fault, but you are a lot less likely to be attacked if you have your wits about you, it's common sense.

I agree with Syl but add, a woman should not lead a geeza on and when action is in progress changes her mind or lies about afterwards.

How does a woman lead someone on? That is saying that then a man is justified to then commit sexual assault or rape because of nothing more than a perception.
If she says no, that means no, does it not?
Just because someone flirts with you, does that mean you can take advantage of her because she has had something to drink? 
So your view is as bad, flirting with someone does not mean its a green light to then sexually abuse them.;
The answer is no

Major wrote:

Syl wrote:He is an utter dickhead.

Any man who sexually assaults any woman is to blame 100%, there are no grey areas...she is innocent, he is guilty, end of.

Women however have a responsibility to take care of themselves. Don't go out walking alone at night in deserted areas, don't get so drunk you cant look after yourself.
If you get assaulted that's not your fault, but you are a lot less likely to be attacked if you have your wits about you, it's common sense.

I agree with Syl but add, a woman should not lead a geeza on and when action is in progress changes her mind or lies about afterwards.

The man in the OP implied if women were sexually assaulted, and they were drunk or wearing short skirts they had to take some of the responsibility for the attack....which is ridiculous.

No means No....a woman is entitled to change her mind before or during....if she changes her mind AFTER and cries rape, it is her who should be charged with a crime not him.

Thorin wrote:

Major wrote:

I agree with Syl but add, a woman should not lead a geeza on and when action is in progress changes her mind or lies about afterwards.

How does a woman lead someone on? That is saying that then a man is justified to then commit sexual assault or rape because of nothing more than a perception.
If she says no, that means no, does it not?
Just because someone flirts with you, does that mean you can take advantage of her because she has had something to drink? 
So your view is as bad, flirting with someone does not mean its a green light to then sexually abuse them.;
The answer is no

Thorin, if you do not know how a woman leads a man on then you ain't one.

You are just saying things that you deem females will want to hear which I have not said yet you attribute them to me.
DO NOT ASSUME/PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH

Major wrote:

Thorin wrote:


How does a woman lead someone on? That is saying that then a man is justified to then commit sexual assault or rape because of nothing more than a perception.
If she says no, that means no, does it not?
Just because someone flirts with you, does that mean you can take advantage of her because she has had something to drink? 
So your view is as bad, flirting with someone does not mean its a green light to then sexually abuse them.;
The answer is no

Thorin, if you do not know how a woman leads a man on then you ain't one.

You are just saying things that you deem females will want to hear which I have not said yet you attribute them to me.
DO NOT ASSUME/PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH

There you go again, your reasoning is based upon nothing more than a perception.
You said leading on and then changing her mind?
That again is a perception. Not everyone wants to sleep with someone they flirt with, but your perception is that they do, by the view you just made. 
If she says no, that means no. That is not even changing her mind, it was in her mind from the beginning. It was the man, who had the wrong perception to believe that the woman wanted to have sex.
That is why your reasoning is so poor, because you fail to have empathic intelligence and are thinking like a man. Nothing is being assumed, i am going off the claims you are making.

It is not a perception, it is a action

You jus run off at the mouth rambling.

You ain't gotta clue.

Major wrote:It is not a perception, it is a action

You jus run off at the mouth rambling.

You ain't gotta clue.

No its a perception.
You said a claim to leading on to then claim she changes her mind.
If the woman says no, that means no. Even if they are kissing, does not mean she wants to have sex and if she says she wants to wait. That means you wait
Full stop.
So again you are proving as to what is one of the problems here. Men wrongly thinking a woman wants sex based off nothing more than a perception.