

Richard Dawkins and male privilege - alphadog
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/05/richard-dawkins-and-male-privilege/

======
maqr
Dawkins says: "No, I obviously don't get it. I will gladly apologise if
somebody will calmly and politely, without using the word fuck in every
sentence, explain to me what it is that I am not getting."

Phil Plait, the author of this article, failed to articulate an explanatory
response to Dawkins.

I don't get it either and this article isn't helping me understand why Dawkins
is wrong.

~~~
ldh
I pretty much agree. I'm not blind to the fear that some women have in
situations like this, and I don't doubt that the guy's behavior came off as
creepy. And I think Richard Dawkins came off like a jerk and needs to soften
his position slightly even if he is trying to make a point.

On the other hand, I think that there's been an overreaction here. Plait says:

"Oh my. I have tried and tried to see some other way to interpret this, but it
looks to me that he really is comparing a potential sexual assault to someone
chewing gum."

Here he makes a similar leap to the one he perceives Dawkins making, IMO.
Comparing what seems to amount to just a creepy but harmless come-on to a
"potential sexual assault" is a bit much. There was no sexual assault. I
understand it was a scary situation for her, but is it valid to simply imagine
a scary scenario, stick the word "potential" in front of it, and demonize the
man for it while we lash out at anyone questioning the claim?

