Oh gosh, Richard not helping again.
No, Richard, to women it doesn’t seem at all like a relatively unimportant matter. If the leader of the Lib Dems and the leader and deputy leader of the Greens disliked beans on toast that would be a relatively unimportant matter, but thinking men are women if they say they are is quite a different matter.
True, he clearly hasn’t thought about the implications for women; or doesn’t care. But his point about disrespect for science is spot on.
Oh I know. I just wish he’d done without the clueless bit.
Before the elevator episode in Dublin I was an unabashed admirer of Richard Dawkins, and even after that I tended to think of it as just one blemish on a
blameless career. My opinion took a definite step down when I read Brief Candle in the Dark: My Life in Science, when I found him to be one of the worst name-droppers I had ever come across.
Your own comment is right, of course: it’s not “a relatively unimportant matter”, but he’s basically on the sane side all the same.
Totally mixed feelings about the guy. “The selfish Gene” and “The extended phenotype” are brilliant books. But, yes, he can be an asshole.
yes, he can be an asshole
My impression isn’t that he is malicious, but that he is just stunningly tone-deaf.
I was impressed with his books and writing too, but not as much as he is.
Mike B: I’m glad you mentioned The Extended Phenotype. It’s probably his least known book, but one of the best.
Unfortunately he’s particularly stunningly tone deaf about issues that affect women. See: Dear Muslima, passim.
He’s also a bit tone deaf about “mild” pedophilia.
Leave a Reply