Mary Midgley is an example of what Segerstrale would call "moral reading", i.e. people whose comprehension of a book is distorted by their moral stance or desire to discredit the author of the work.
(Pretty much like the "Against Sociobiology" crowd that dowsed Wilson with water at a conference and tried to link him to genocide and naziism and all that.)
Basically, she didn't read TSG with any degree of rigour, if at all. All too many people have jumped to the assumption that Dawkins was referring to subjective emotions - rather than behaviourist description.
Check out Dawkins's rebuttal to Mary Midgley.