Having met Dawkins once, I consider
Rebecca's blog condemning Dawkin's reply to the affair to be undeserved. I've never met a more mild mannered polite proper man than Dawkins.
It doesn't bother me either and I'm a middle class, middle aged, heterosexual white woman. It's hard to believe my being from the age of the sexual revolution in the US and Rebecca being younger is the difference, but maybe that's it.
Maybe I misinterpreted it but to me, it came off as; The skeptic community has some nerve standing behind RD, who uttered a few sentences about a situation where she felt uncomfortable, when there's women who have it far worse. Unless her genitals are being mutilated, don't complain. Really? So by that notion, unless you are being religiously persecuted in a violent manner, don't complain. You don't like the religious dominance in the US, get over it, people are getting their heads cut off in other countries.
Of course groping is disgusting, but I have a hard time believing this is some common behavior. I've been groped a couple times in my lifetime and the atmosphere this happens in is rare, not common.
But as for the other stuff, sheesh, get over yourself. Ignore the fools. There are plenty of men an intellectual woman can have a legit conversation with. They can't all be drooling ignoramuses. I meet with both a skeptic's group and an atheist group. I've never seen anyone objectify women in either group the way Rebecca is describing. And I've been to dozens of professional conferences. I've never had any trouble finding intelligent conversations to participate in.
She said that in the beginning, she thought the attention was kind of fun. What you are doing is exactly what she referred to, in her speech as an argument from ignorance; because you don't experience it, it must not be a big occurance.
In my opinion, bullying is bullying, whether it's through an email or in person, no one should have to tolerate being told that they need to be raped to teach them a lesson. Telling her that she needs to get over herself for addressing it is the same as telling a kid to get over it, when they are addressing bullying issues at school. The behavior is wrong and the person committing the behavior needs to be confronted and told it's wrong. You just don't sit back and tell the victim that it's just how things are, learn to deal with it. If women kept that attitude, we wouldn't have the right to vote.
Is this said unwanted attention really that much different from PZ being accosted regularly by Catholics and certain Christians, Dawkin's by Creationists, Plait by the Moon landing deniers, and Shermer by the 911 CTers?
As I've said before, threats of violence should be addressed, whether it's sexual or asexually physical. However, when someone addresses a point that RD by stating that he needs to get hit by a church bus, it shows ignorance and violent tendencies. When someone says that RW needs to get raped in response to a point she addresses, it shows ignorance, violent tendencies, and an underlying misogyny. Rape, in that context, is a show of dominance, an imbalance of power. It's very similar, if not identical to prison rape. Prison rape is not necessarily about sexual gratification, it's using sex to belittle the victim and prove your dominance. Unlike RD, RW does not need to be eliminated, they simply feel if they **** her hard enough, she will be more obedient.
Thanks for the link, that young lady being called out wrongly is ... well, not well played. 
Has Ms Watson made amends? 
