Richard Dawkins in the elevator

Well I'm glad you weren't in the lift then Galen!

He could have had his wicked way with you easy peasy.

Me too, Galen but I think he's on a hiding to nothing when he asks a drunk woman, in a lift going up to bedrooms at 4am, to come to his room for 'coffee.'

Now, if the lift had been going down to reception, and she was sober.........

I'm not sure how much respect, as opposed to courtesy, is owed to a drunken woman in the first place – and I speak as one who likes a glass or two (not glassortwo, although I like her too). Also, I have attended conferences and been invited for coffee, albeit after dinner rather than in the early hours of the morning, and coffee was what was served to me, together with more discussion on the conference subject. Maybe I was just an ugly old bat and no one wanted to seduce me!

Especially if they are wearing a short skirt and too much makeup!

....but surely a drunken woman is not deemed to be fully capable of consenting to whatever she is being propositioned for, and thankfully she was not taken advantage of because she declined. I think if I had a couple too many and got into a lift alone, I would not welcome a strange man seeing an opportunity that could be exploited.

Where does it say she was drunk. She is an American Muslim isn't she?

On the quote Bags posted.

Oh, that's just some anonymous poster. Can't really trust that.

I thought muslims don't drink?

Can you actualy have atheist muslims? Is it allowed? Totally now.

What has this got to do with atheism?

I invited two men to my room for coffee (well, it was tea, actually) at a conference. They came, marvelled at my foresight in bringing a gaz stove with which to boil a kettle. We had tea and chatted. They went away. I went to bed. I've no idea what they did, nor do I care. I presume they also went to bed.

All three of us were happily married but all three of us were also at a conference to talk about something that interested us (maths, not atheism, in case anyone wants to know).

Later we all got the train back to Edinburgh together. I lived there. They had other trains to catch. I saw my husband waiting for me, said "There he is! Cheerio!" and left. I've never heard of them since. Can't even remember their names and I don't suppose they remember mine even if they remember the tea.

I'm like galen in not assuming an invitation to coffee and chat means anything more than that. That said, I wouldn't accept such an invitation from a man on his own who'd had a bit too much to drink at four o'clock in the morning. But if he accepted my refusal, I wouldn't think any the worse of him for asking.

I might accept (have accepted on occasions) invitations that included a group of people though, even in the early hours of the morning.

petallus, I didn't go looking for stuff which threw muck at Watson. I looked for stuff about the incident in the opening post in which I had noticed that Dawkins was the person assumed, wrongly, to be in the lift. I thought this had probably happened because the opening poster already has a negative view of him and would be happy to believe such tripe about him. It appears I was wrong about that so I apologised for my muck-raking comment.

I also looked for stuff about the incident in order to find out more information about what happened and why Richard Dawkins said what he said to 'muslima' (whom I still think is not Rebecca Watson, but I'm happy to be corrected on that if someone has further information). There are lots of comments made two years ago about the incident and a lot of them said things to the effect that made me think Watson misandrous. Since I think men who are misoyginistic are "not altogether nice", and since I'm not sexist, I also think women who are misandrous are not altogether nice. I think perhaps you read too much into whatever post provoked your accusation of my muck-raking.

However, I do realise that you'll probably carry on thinking I muck-raked about Watson. As Dawkins would say, that's your privilege. Think what you like, but I suspect that you also would have tried to find out more information about an incident involving someone whom you knew not to have the failing that was being ascribed to him.

Nothing to do with atheism. I think Dawkins is right that she is making a fuss about nothing. Sounds like man was perfectly polite. Men and women in their millions say things like this to other people at conferences every year. Specially when they have been in a bar. Yes there are some men (and women) who hope that they will have casual sex at conferences but as long as they do not make a nuisance of themselves then so what.
Dawkins was trying to be controversial and must have known that some people would be offended with him. So what's new?

PS And I will continue to think that people who think Dawkins misogynistic do not understand what he writes, or haven't read enough of what he has written, or heard enough of what he says, in addition to not knowing anything about him except that he's an outspoken atheist. It's interesting that they tend to be the same ones who appear to object to outspoken atheism on principle and to define it as aggression.

I don't think he was trying to be controversial though I suspect he knew people would think him so. I suspect he also doesn,t see why that should stop him saying things that cut through to the heart of the matter – in this case that the woman is making a stupid fuss about something that in the big scheme of things is totally unimportant.

As jess and ana can see.

You don't think he was using an extreme way of writing to make his point bags?

I don't find his writing extreme. I did find his post about this Fuss strong. He writes strongly. That's his style and it's what makes him so clear, I think. I don't always like it even if I agree with what he says, but that's not important. His strength is communicating clearly and the device he uses of strong, forthright language is effective. I bet what he says, even if he said it mildly, would still get some people,s backs up because of their negative approach to atheism and/or evolution. They object to the subjects being aired, and they especially object when someone who airs them gets so much publicity and is so well liked across the world.

Maybe I don't find his writing extreme because I was taught to aim for that kind of writing for academic purposes, so I expect it from an academic who does a lot of writing. I enjoy reading his stuff because there's so little waffle.

That said, I've never got through The Ancestor's Tale because I found it too waffly even though I know it is packed with information about evolution. Maybe it reads too like a text book, whereas his others don't.

So, no, not extreme. Bitingly to the point, but not extreme. I would only regard something extreme if it incited violence or hatred. That is not Dawkins' aim. He wants to incite thinking and rationality.

Also, jess, I'm sure the Dawkins reply to which people are objecting was not in reply to the bit immediately above it in the OP. I think there had been a lot more said by a lot more people by then, and that he was responding to a lot of misguided feminist crap. Naturally he would do this in strong language. So would I, so would you, probably, if we responded at all.

Maybe not quite so strongly, but we'd mean the same as what he says.

"Listen to the meaning not the words" is my motto.

'Misguided feminist crap' eh!

Well, Bags that's certainly expressing yourself strongly though I'm not sure it demonstrates a training in academic writing.

Time for me to leave this thread I think.

Bags that is not academic writing as I know it. Clever and sharp yes, but academic, no. By extreme I mean "intended to provoke".
Less provocative and more academic might be, I would contend:

The recent observation that, in middle class North American culture, an ambiguous invitation to a young woman in a lift was judged by her as both sexual in nature and offensive in nature, should be juxtaposed to the much greater offences committed against women in the Muslim world. It would seem to me....

(why is it spelled provoke with a k and provocative with a c )

OK, agreed, jess, but why are you objecting to provocative writing? Why shouldn't Dawkins write provocatively? Dramatists do it all the time and it's called theatre. He's married to an actress...

Bye bye, petallus. (didn't say I could write academically, did I? )

Going for my shower, I just thought: as well as provocative, if you like, what RD wrote sounds pissed off to me, with the all fuss about what was essentially a normal late night conference exchange in a lift which caused no-one any harm whatsoever.

I think he's justified in expressing anger at nonsense like that when, as he says, horrendous things are done to women all the time. It's the harmful stuff he's trying to stop. The harmless stuff Watson is blethering about can take care of itself. And does.

So, I still think all the fuss about nothing is feminist crap. Give me a real feminist, like Dawkins, any time.

Had mine! Dressed and ready for work.