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.
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?
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.