Because she is an active, well known member of the atheist/skeptic community, she goes to conventions and conferences and speaks her mind because she has an intellectual stake in it; and there are men in the atheist community that instead of appreciating that, see her merely as a women and that it's okay to just ignore and her purpose and instead treat her as a sex fantasy. That's what Elevator Guy did. Clearly, he's pretty harmless, and from all evidence, has better social skills than the guys that send her vulgar e-mails, but I think that it's a situation where people need to realise that severe abuse stems from minor abuse. If you excuse reasonably harmless behavior based because it didn't cause anybody harm, even though it stems from same fundamentals as harmful behavior, then you're going to end up with a muddle of principles. RW clearly felt that this guy was violating the fundamentals behind the abusive behavior she receives due to being a well-known skeptist speaker/blogger.Beebub wrote:She mentions e-mails from atheists who 'describe in graphic detail what they'd like to do to me (sexually)'.
And she mentions religious hate mail where she gets more threats of rape or people saying she should be raped than she does death threats (which she also gets).
At no point does she mention any of the stuff she's been saying since the encounter with 'elevetor guy'. There's no discussion of how she has been treated at atheist conferences or meetings. No mention of the fact that she doesn't like to be hit on at atheist conferences or elsewhere. No mention of the fact that women have told her that they don't like to go to these meetings in pubs or conferences because they'll be hit on.
That said, I didn't follow RW herself after the intitial blog post. I read PZ Meyers updates/links on it, but he dropped it after a day. I read RD's response, and a blog responding to that response. And I read the comments on those blogs. Then my interest dropped. Once you get beyond a certain stage of something, nobody really knows what they're arguing about anymore. As is evident in this thread, there are several groups debating various aspects of it, some people involved in more than one of those various debates.
Personally, I still don't like Richard Dawkin's response. I don't think it's the cleverest thing he's ever done, nor do I think that because he was molested he has the right to tell women not to feel threatened by seemingly harmless behavior. I think it has more to do with sexism and men's attitudes towards women, than sexual assault itself (seeing as she wasn't sexually assaulted and I doubt that the guy had any intention of assaulting her), and Dawkins being molested doesn't make him an authority on what it feels like to be a women and viewed as "nothing but" by certain men.
As to what it has boiled down to since, you know what? Don't know, don't care to find out. I don't think Dawkins is in trouble of losing influence, his enemies haven't defeated him yet, I doubt this will help them close in on him; I'm not a fundamentalist, I don't try to excuse everything Dawkins says or does or try to agree with everything in his books; he's human, it's okay for me to think that in this situation, he wasn't totally right.