David Allen Green

A critical and liberal look at law and policy

Sharing a lift with Richard Dawkins

The rationalist champion compares propositioning a woman with chewing gum.

By David Allen Green Published 06 July 2011 16:42

There is considerable controversy in the blogosphere about Richard Dawkins and his apparent views on women. Dawkins, whose strident atheism undoubtedly puts off more people than it attracts, has long been a figure who has divided atheists and skeptics (the latter a general label for many who self-consciously promote critical thinking and an evidence-based approach).

The current controversy follows a video posted by the leading American skeptic campaigner and pundit, Rebecca Watson (known widely for her involvement with the excellent Skepchick site).

I know Rebecca slightly through the skeptical movement (I help run Westminster Skeptics) and although I often do not agree with her, this particular video was sensible and constructive. She simply discusses in a calm and reflective manner how uncomfortable she felt when a man propositioned her in a lift. As she later wrote:

I said, "Guys, don't do that." Really, that's what I said. I didn't call for an end to sex. I didn't accuse the man in my story of rape. I didn't say all men are monsters. I said, "Guys, don't do that."

Fair enough, one would think. There is no reason to believe that she placed any more import on what she said than that.

However, in an extraordinary and somewhat erratic comment by Richard Dawkins, he invokes this video in a message he would send to an imaginary Muslim woman complaining of misogyny:

Dear Muslima

Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don't tell me yet again, I know you aren't allowed to drive a car, and you can't leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you'll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.

Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep"chick", and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn't lay a finger on her, but even so . . .

And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.

Richard

One of many problems here is that Rebecca didn't use her video to downplay the plight of Muslim women from the perspective of an American woman. In fact, she made no connection at all. The connection seems only to have occurred in the mind of Richard Dawkins.

Was it even a fair point? Of course it was not. Just because there is severe misogyny in one context doesn't remove the need to deal rationally and helpfully with its lesser manifestation in other contexts.

When asked to explain his position by someone asking for clarification whether he had made the argument that, since worse things are happening somewhere else, we have no right to try to fix things closer to home, the response was as follows:

No I wasn't making that argument. Here's the argument I was making. The man in the elevator didn't physically touch her, didn't attempt to bar her way out of the elevator, didn't even use foul language at her. He spoke some words to her. Just words. She no doubt replied with words. That was that. Words. Only words, and apparently quite polite words at that.

If she felt his behaviour was creepy, that was her privilege, just as it was the Catholics' privilege to feel offended and hurt when PZ nailed the cracker. PZ didn't physically strike any Catholics. All he did was nail a wafer, and he was absolutely right to do so because the heightened value of the wafer was a fantasy in the minds of the offended Catholics. Similarly, Rebecca's feeling that the man's proposition was 'creepy' was her own interpretation of his behaviour, presumably not his. She was probably offended to about the same extent as I am offended if a man gets into an elevator with me chewing gum. But he does me no physical damage and I simply grin and bear it until either I or he gets out of the elevator. It would be different if he physically attacked me.

Muslim women suffer physically from misogyny, their lives are substantially damaged by religiously inspired misogyny. Not just words, real deeds, painful, physical deeds, physical privations, legally sanctioned demeanings. The equivalent would be if PZ had nailed not a cracker but a Catholic.

Then they'd have had good reason to complain.

Richard

Explanations often can make things worse, and so it did in this case. As Phil Plait correctly states, there is no natural meaning to this other than the fact that Dawkins is comparing the discomfort of a woman propositioned in a lift with him sharing a lift with a man chewing gum.

This is all strange stuff indeed from a man professing to be a promoter of rational thinking. He is making connections which do not exist and positing analogies which do not make any sense. From a person with his supposed intellectual reputation, this is surely a disgrace. This is more what one would expect from Richard Littlejohn than Richard Dawkins.

But it seems part of a possible trend. Those who merely pose as rationalists and promoters of liberal values are being found out. The philosopher AC Grayling has founded a sham college, supported by Dawkins, which is nothing more than a glorified tutorial agency for rich students unable to get places elsewhere. The progressive journalist Johann Hari has apologised for an irregular interview technique, about which questions still remain.

But it is not a bad thing for those who promote rational and liberal values to be held to them. There is virtue in consistency. Is Richard Dawkins a sexist? In my opinion, he certainly seems to be, on the basis of this evidence. To compare the discomfort of a women being propositioned in a lift with his aesthetic displeasure of another man chewing gum is actually difficult to construe in any other way.

Can Richard Dawkins still credibly pose as a champion of rational thinking and an evidence-based approach? In my opinion, he certainly cannot, at least not in the way he did before.

The principle of the "survival of the fittest" applies in respect of intellectual reputations as it can elsewhere, and what now happens to the intellectual reputation of Richard Dawkins may be an example of the principle in practice.

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman. You can follow him on Twitter and on Facebook.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Richard Dawkins

More from David Allen Green

View the discussion thread.

157 comments

Sun, 2012-09-09 22:57 — Hugh Oxford (not verified)

I wonder whether the level of creepiness was related to his level of attractiveness?

Thu, 2012-10-25 13:22 — apm (not verified)

No I suspect it was related to the fact he was an unknown man at 4am in a lift. I suspect that had he propositioned her in the crowded bar earlier and asked to go somewhere neutral and public for coffee it would not have warranted mention. In fact that has probably happened hundreds of times to her with men she fancies and says yes to and those she doesn't but can safely refuse!

Most women know most men aren't rapists. Most women however are aware that rape is a fact of life and more likely in certain situations - such as alone with a strange man on a train late at night or in a lift alone - no matter how attractive the man. And they are wary in those circumstances. Likewise most men are aware that women are scared and moderate their behaviour accordingly.

She didn't accuse him of anything just pointed out what most men know - those sorts of invites are for crowded bars or public places or in the daytime. Richard Dawkins has shown a complete lack of insight and given the impression he really doesn't like women

Thu, 2012-10-25 13:22 — apm (not verified)

Wed, 2012-08-08 16:47 — Briain (not verified)

What an utterly ridiculous and illiberal article! The New Statesman blogs are in urgent need of some editing and the bloggers are in urgent need of some lessons in informal logic. The blatant use of ad hominem, equivocation and statement masquerading as argument is to expected of a lawyer but is unacceptable in any mature form of discourse. Pathetic.

Thu, 2012-07-05 17:54 — Aberusugi (not verified)

I seem to see a trend amongst all of the posts blasting the man in the elevator and considering it a mysoginistic or sexist move to do what he did in that elevator. Are they forgetting that he started off what he said with "Don't take this the wrong way..." I mean could it have been a possibility that he wasn't interested in her at all. What sort of ego trip was she on that after hearing "Don't take this the wrong way..." she thought she was getting propositioned to be taken advantage of?

Sat, 2012-07-07 03:47 — HANNA WYOMING (not verified)

i agree with you here on disagreeing with dawkins... much of what he writes about women is old fashioned and rather sexist (he famously wrote an article for vanity fair saying that women aren't funny, for instance). but i think dawkins often makes poor arguments in general, even for things that could be argued logically. he may be a leader in the rationalist movement but only because there are so few others of intellectual merit standing for it. his argument about this case is another example of a poorly crafted piece of writing which he is unable to address rationally. if he thinks the man in the elevator really didn't trouble the woman, as the woman said he did, then argue that, don't bring up a red herring vague loosely written statement about other women who suffer more and imply that if one doesn't suffer physical symptoms one should shut up about their suffering. in that case woman who fought for the right to vote shouldn't have bothered. why does he think it's his role to tell her what does and does not constitute a concern worth mentioning... if it's his place to tell her she ought not have bothered complaining about it, then it's mine to tell him he shouldn't have complained about her and worked on refining his debate skills.

Tue, 2012-08-07 11:22 — Oliver Tearle (not verified)

It was Christopher Hitchens who wrote that article about women not being funny, not Richard Dawkins.

Fri, 2011-07-08 07:51 — Primateus (not verified)

Spectacular stupidity, sanctimony, and odious mean-spiritedness displayed here and elsewhere. The journalist's piece here is another tedious example of hyperbole and histrionics. He clearly dislikes Dawkins and relishes this opportunity, like myriad other self-righteous little snots bleating breathlessly over the internet. Truly dispiriting.

Thu, 2011-07-07 11:19 — Maryn (not verified)

Jen and Bamberries
Miss the point much? I was saying that the opposition to RW was not b/c they support Dawkins but b/c they are MRAs who see an opportunity to attack what they perceive as feminist over-reaction.

Fri, 2011-07-08 08:11 — fens (not verified)

Good grief, folks. We know the rules are different on elevators, don't we? If I don't know you and you're suddenly chatty on an elevator, you're bizarre and creepy and you can just STFU, please. If you start hitting on me, out of nowhere, I'm perfectly reasonable in thinking you're a borderline sociopath.

If I push the wrong button, causing us to make an unwarranted stop, I damn well better apologize.

If there are only 2 of us on the elevator, I DAMN well better lean on the left wall if you're over on the right. It doesn't matter that there's some info about the hotel's Italian restaurant posted on the left wall; stay on your side. What's more, don't try to read the info in a way that might seem like you're staring at me.

These are simple common courtesies that we agree and accept in order to make bearable having to be in a close, confined space with strangers. They apply regardless of whether you or I are male or female.

It's plain as day that you don't hit on someone in an elevator. If you do, you're creepy as heck, and deserve to be called out.

Fri, 2011-07-08 08:28 — fens (not verified)

http://www.elevatorrules.com/rules/talking-and-singing/

Thu, 2011-07-14 15:41 — Tony Ryan (not verified)

David Allen Green: "Well done, you have become a complete muppet". Basically, you're taking part in Rebecca Watson's ridiculously lame, selfish agenda. Dawkins has done more for the atheist and humanist movement than any of the skepchicks could ever hope for.

Thu, 2011-07-07 11:51 — Robert Taggart

DAG. In that lift - who propositioned who ?
Reading your piece one would guess you 'begged' the question, to which RD replied in the negative ?
DAG - still feeling 'sore' ? !

Sat, 2011-07-09 03:43 — Lee (not verified)

Dear David.

She's not going to fuck you.

Yours

Mr W. H. iteknight

Wed, 2011-07-20 07:51 — Charlie (not verified)

Ridiculous. Whatever happened to being a nice person? This was that irish dude's only chance with her, ever (he must have been smashed) and he took a swing and got shot down. Everything else is just posturing, and Rebecca makes the world a worse place for civility.

http://www.singledudetravel.com/2011/07/up-yours-rebecca-watson/

Fri, 2011-07-08 11:04 — Bob (not verified)

Is this part of the continuing campaign among some in the free-thinking community to try to destroy Dawkins (and in passing Anthony Grayling -- the comments on his college project are puerile in the extreme)as a leading torchbearer in the drive to keep religion from intruding increasingly into public life? I was once propositioned in he elevator of a Paris hotel by a pretty Vietnamese lady who sought to accompany me to MY room for "coffee." I said "Non, Merci" and we parted amicably when the lift stopped at the next floor. It must happen thousands of times a day around the world. And although I did feel slightly awkward, I was not mortally offended. Unlike Richard, a gum-chewing elevator neighbour does not disturb me, but a smoking one certainly does. I would put that far higher on the offense scale than a polite offer of a canoodle. Does that make me, a father of two strong-minded daughters and grandfather of two more similar females, a sexist?

Sun, 2011-07-10 21:40 — Clare45 (not verified)

I have worked in the mental health field for many years. I would like to point out that rape is a crime of violence and control/power over women that has very little to do with sexuality, as Rebecca assumes with her fear. In fact, rapists are often impotent. If you are the one they want, they will get you, even in your own home. Nowhere is safe. They often plan the attack for days or weeks ahead of time, watching your every move. That 1 in 6 women being assaulted figure in the US that keeps being quoted, is for all types of sexual assault, often unproven in court, and includes such things as grabbing the breasts, or flashing. Violent rapes are quite rare. Statistically, young MEN are at greatest risk of violent assaults and murders.

Sun, 2011-07-10 22:11 — kenwil (not verified)

Pathetic drivel by David Allen Green (all those many people who support him in this comment list)
I wonder how any procreation will take place in future if such mild exchanges between the sexes are frowned on. Get a life.

Tue, 2011-07-12 06:08 — DRM (not verified)

"But it seems part of a possible trend. Those who merely pose as rationalists and promoters of liberal values are being found out. ... The progressive journalist Johann Hari has apologised for an irregular interview technique, about which questions still remain."

I'm sorry, but aside from that seeming rather irrelevant to the content of the article, the whole framing is simple-minded. There aren't "true adherents to liberal, rationalist values" and mere "pretenders". There's a spectrum of people who best live up to those ideals and those who don't, with most people making varying degrees of mistakes. Those this instance of simple-mindedness prove that you're a "pretender" (you do, after all, have the generalizing and very rhetorical tendencies of a typical lawyer who seeks to persuade rather than find truth).

And while I can't comment on the details of Harri's recent scandal, I certainly think you'd be a rather foolish fellow to call him a poser (as he's changed his mind on some really important issues, notably the Iraq War, over the years and does a lot more thorough of a job at reasoning than typical journalists).

Tue, 2011-07-12 06:11 — DRM (not verified)

Should clarify. With "Those this instance of simple-mindedness prove that you're a "pretender" (you do, after all, have the generalizing and very rhetorical tendencies of a typical lawyer who seeks to persuade rather than find truth)." I really meant "Do those this instance of simple-mindedness prove that you're a "pretender" (you do, after all, have the generalizing and very rhetorical tendencies of a typical lawyer who seeks to persuade rather than find truth)?" My point being how stupid it is to divide the world up into pure, intellectually honest people and cynical fakers.

Thu, 2011-07-07 13:33 — SeekingClarity

"The philosopher AC Grayling has founded a sham college, supported by Dawkins, which is nothing more than a glorified tutorial agency for rich students unable to get places elsewhere."

DAG, if you have a problem with there being rich people, why are you not calling for your QC colleagues to have their annual earnings capped at, say, 30K and the minimum wage to be raised to, say, £10/hour.

Thu, 2011-07-07 13:37 — Dan Rodger (not verified)

Jennie Kermode - It seems particularly ironic that Dawkins, of all people, should screw up this badly by failing to properly read somebody's writing and missing the point as a result.

Sorry have you read the God Delusion?? Its one long piece of missing the point and failing to read or understand good philosophical argument.

That aside my expectations of Dawkins are very low already so this doesn't surprise me.

The woman should grow a spine.'s picture

Thu, 2011-07-07 13:38 — The woman should grow a spine. (not verified)

I will continue to make a pass at women im interested in. I wont be mad to feel like a rapist by a hand full of stuck up women and appeasing little weasel men.

Fri, 2011-07-08 12:23 — ikram (not verified)

I'm sorry but I'm hardpressed to find anything wrong with what Dawkin's has said, granted his analogy could've been better. But as someone who in the midst of the suffering and injustice in Islam against women, I understand Dawkin's sarcastic remark targetted at Rebecca.

Sat, 2011-07-23 11:00 — Natalie (not verified)

What a load of rubbish. Dawkins was right - grow a thicker skin. She overreacted. I must say I'm a bit surprised by his response (purely because he must have many better things to do) and so I'm not surprised she feels a bit put out. But to use this to attack Dawkins is pathetic and doesn't benefit any of us, especially at a time when we need his clarity of thought more than ever (er...Utoya).

Thu, 2011-07-07 14:28 — Bob (not verified)

What's the law or policy angle on this, David? Is this blog going to be about randomly sniping at people you don't like? Recycling PZ's comments spats does not appear to be the finest hour of critical & liberal commentary on law and policy issues. And you even squeeze in another opportunistic kick at Hari - because there just hasn't been enough of an undignified pile-on from New Statesman bloggers quite yet. Meanwhile, back in the arena of stories that DO belong here, Jacqui Thompson, who was recently unfairly arrested, handcuffed and detained for filming a Carmarthenshire Council meeting despite them not actually having any standing orders prohibiting it, has been told she is banned from attending further council meetings (despite their standing orders actually explicitly barring them from doing so), but has told them she's planning to attend on July 13th. Maybe they'll call the police again - or back down on an issue they were clearly misguided about. Sounded like last time the Council didn't know what their powers were and the police didn't know what their remit was, so perhaps you might consider attending too - for the sake of a day trip I'm sure you'd get either a story or a big game hunting trophy out of it one way or another. What would Jack of Kent do?

Wed, 2011-07-06 17:14 — ewan (not verified)

There is an awful lot of context that's missing from this write-up. Dawkins' comments were not a direct response to Rebecca Watson, they were participation in a long discussion thread on Pharyngula in which many people went considerably further than the original complaint.

Thu, 2011-07-07 14:40 — ceresa (not verified)

What you're missing I'm afraid is how revolting it is to be in an enclosed space with someone chewing gum with their mouth open. It stinks. So what's worse, being propositioned (politely) or subected to someone's minty mouth emanations? About kif kif as we say here in the Moslem world.

Thu, 2011-07-07 14:58 — Tom Paine (not verified)

"David Allen Green

A critical and liberal look at law and policy"

And what the blue blazes has the Dawkins article to do with this?

Thu, 2011-07-07 15:15 — martin (not verified)

"Those who merely pose as rationalists and promoters of liberal values are being found out."

What an utterly RIDICULOUS thing to say. Just because someone is morally inconsistent doesn't mean they are posing. I dislike and disagree with the recent actions of Grayling and Dawkins I don't doubt their personal commitment to some of the principals they have espoused in the past.

Yes they have done stupid stuff but that doesn't mean they aren't overall people worth considering (although in Graylings case I've never liked anything much about him - I'll give him the benefit of the doubt).

More importantly I've experienced directly the arrogant hypocrisy of this author who feels free to patronize and insult critics (even when they are constructive). If I were to judge the author of the article by that and also his posturing in this article then I would think he was something of a lowlife. Which hopefully he is not.

Sat, 2011-07-09 15:22 — alfie (not verified)

Imagine someone saying something as crass as that.

But I just wonder why The New Statesman takes the high horse position, when it employs Mehdi Hasan, who in a speech described non Muslims as 'kuffar', and of being like animals and cattle with no intelligence. This is bigotry. The difference is, you employ and defend a man who expresses this bigotry against non Muslims.

Wed, 2011-07-06 16:56 — Colin (not verified)

Well said David.

Wed, 2011-07-06 16:58 — Jennie Kermode (not verified)

It seems particularly ironic that Dawkins, of all people, should screw up this badly by failing to properly read somebody's writing and missing the point as a result.

Then again, perhaps we should give him the benefit of the doubt. He may have been attacked by a piece of chewing gum as a child.

Wed, 2011-07-06 16:58 — Dave Cross (not verified)

I disagree completely with what Richard Dawkins wrote and will certainly examine closely anything he says on sexual politics in the future.

But I think you're going too far to say this jeopardises his role as a leader of of the rationalist movement. I'm sure he reached his viewpoint rationally.

Or are we saying that someone can only be rational if they come to exactly the same conclusions as us in all matters?

Wed, 2011-07-06 17:00 — Rebekah Coulson (not verified)

This is a rather strange response to the issue. I don't disagree with your conclusions - Dawkins was utterly wrong on this one - but I'm not sure the story will be terribly clear to anyone who doesn't already know Pharyngula and the story of PZ and the cracker. Nor am I sure how well known Phil Plait is outside of the skeptical movement.

It seems a rather parochial approach to the issue.

Wed, 2011-07-06 17:02 — Malachai (not verified)

Another ridiculous "Me too" article. Fantastic.

This has been blown way out of proportion and it's sad to see otherwise reasonably intelligent people making a mountain out of a molehill. Portraying this guy as if he's some kind of sexual predator or Dawkins as a sexist is asinine at best. What's next? Men/Women segregated elevators? Government sanctioned "Mack" zones?

The guy made a pass at her in a short ride elevator. She said no. He stopped. END OF STORY. Had he made physical moves or even continued to verbally push I'd 100% be on her side. But he didn't. Focusing on what COULD have happened and on Dawkins gum analogy shows that people really don't "get it."

Wed, 2011-07-06 17:05 — Andrew Chalkley (not verified)

"However, in an extraordinary and somewhat erratic comment by Richard Dawkins," - it's pretty ordinary of late. Check out his profile on his site. He's obsessed with violent rhetoric and has an unusual obsession with Islam.

Fri, 2011-07-08 14:26 — oceanclub

I'm totally with Watson on this one and found Dawkins' remarks insensistive.

However, the same magazine that runs an apologia for Raed Saleh has no right to fucking comment about anyone's sexism:

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/07/palestinian-israe...

Sat, 2011-07-09 16:34 — Fraziel

Is this what the world has come to? Women get offended if someone politely speaks to them in a lift and asks them to have a coffee with them. Dear god i hate feminists.And well said Dawkins.

Wed, 2011-07-06 17:08 — Simon (not verified)

I think Dawkins made a perfectly accurate point but he made it badly. As I see it, Dawkins is basically saying the man in the lift didn't really do anything wrong and has the right to ask a woman if she would like to go back to his room for coffee.
The chewing gum analogy was terrible and misguided but overall I think his point still stands, despite his tactless and juvenile way of making an argument.

Wed, 2011-07-06 17:12 — Idle (not verified)

I agree with Rebecca on this, and everything she did. But for the life of me, I cannot see what the problem is with Dawkins comment. It is internally consistent and entirely rational. Yes, it is minimizing the plight, but from the vitriol spewn forth towards him, you would think he would be pro-rape. He is not. He is merely making the point that the community, not Rebecca, is way over reacting to this. Phil plait went into crazy land declaring pretty much all men to be rapists, as any encounter is likely to lead to rape.

Tue, 2011-08-30 16:07 — Robert (not verified)

I see nothing wrong with what Dawkins wrote. Talk about creating a controversy out of nothing! Dawkins comparison to Muslim women is valid. These feminists need to pay more attention to their sisters in Muslim populated countries. To think that getting hit on in an elevator is somehow degrading is an insult to those women who are beaten and abused everyday. Pathetic!

Wed, 2011-07-06 17:13 — David D (not verified)

Malachai - spot on!

Wed, 2011-07-06 17:13 — Rustam (not verified)

This is interesting and confirms my personal opinion of Dawkins as a rationalist who is on the verge of losing his humanity.

I enjoy reading his books and agree entirely with his views on religion, but in interviews and television programmes (where he does not get the chance to edit his words) he regularly comes across as arrogant, sexist and culturally unsophisticated.

I remember watching a programme on rationality on TV (re education and medicine) where he appeared to dismiss entirely a body of thought (relating to medicine) because it was not western.

Sat, 2011-08-27 20:39 — J_Brisby (not verified)

Frankly, Dawkins' comments seem quite levelheaded and sensible to me, while the feminists' responses have been absurdly over-the-top in their distortions.

For example, Dawkins wasn't saying anything resembling "because there are big evils somewhere else, we shouldn't fight small evils closer to home". What he was saying was that there are too many REAL evils elsewhere in the world to worry about IMAGINARY evils closer to home.

I mean, think about what Watson is saying. She's saying that men are somehow supposed to know in advance if a sexual proposition will be welcome or not. She's asking all men to alter their behaviour, because all women are just like her. It's an example of the sense of entitlement which is a character flaw of the entire gender. Like the old joke says, most women don't even realize alcohol costs money until they reach the age of 30.

Something I've often suspected is now being demonstrated: Feminism is not good for atheism. The shitstorm engendered over this demonstrates (as if Oprah's fanbase didn't already) that women, even brilliant women, simply don't have the mental tools for skepticism. This all started, not because someone hit on Watson in an elevator, but because quite a few people told her she was wrong, and women lost their minds. NOT ONE of them has demonstrated an ability or a willingness to think 'hey, I might be wrong', which is the very foundation of skepticism. And it's a shame that they're joining the atheist/skeptical community in increasing numbers, because they're bringing the movement down.

Wed, 2011-07-06 17:15 — Rafa (not verified)

How to blow a situation out of proportion? That's how.

Sat, 2011-08-27 21:26 — J_Brisby (not verified)

Whoops, spoke too soon. Reading the comments here in detail, I counted four women that I'd be glad to discuss feminism with over coffee (in an elevator even). To those four (you know who you are), my apologies.

Wed, 2011-07-06 17:22 — Malachai (not verified)

I'd like to expand on what I said earlier and say I mostly agree with Simon. What Dawkins said is right but could have been said more accurately and with a better analogy.

Wed, 2011-07-06 17:20 — James Edward (not verified)

I often see Richard Dawkins as a necessary irritation. I say this as he goes so far that it makes being on the boundary of current thinking closer to acceptable. And I feel a broader view of discussable topics is always a good trend to follow.
However, for say that I feel that in this case it is a joke where no one has seen the funny side. Dawkins is not making an irrational jump just saying that he would equate his dislike of people chewing in an elevator to being propositioned in one.
Also, a lost point from all this I feel is the view of the man asking a girl for coffee. It will have taken courage on his part to speak out to stranger let alone to ask them for a drink. I feel that adding to the disappointment of being turned down to say that he was out of order is rather insulting in a way.
Still my main point being although I normally mark Dawkins as way off base this really is just a bad joke, made badly and badly received. Listen to the point he is making not the words he is saying.

Wed, 2011-07-06 17:20 — Ben (not verified)

"To compare the discomfort of a women being propositioned in a lift with his aesthetic displeasure of another man chewing gum is actually difficult to construe in any other way."

First off, you can compare anything to anything, including apples and oranges. A comparison is not an equation!

Secondly, this whole 'affair' is at heart solely a differing in opinion.
And that one is understandable: 'appropriateness' is a fuzzy realm, which is no new insight! Groping a stranger's groin, e.g., is on the far left side, 98% agree it is inappropriate, there are laws sanctioning it. Bidding a formal greeting is on the far right side, 98% agree is is appropriate, people acknowledge what a nice person you are. The stuff we are talking about here, lives around 30-70%. You get a plethora of personal(!) view points.

What is NOT understandable, however, is those 'leaders' of movement(s) cannibalizing what is theirs to protect above personal vanities. You can do that: be an individual, it's your right. But that doesn't mix with leadership. You carry greater responsibilities up the ladder and enjoy less freedom.