By Aaron Blumer Jul 19 2011 FeminismAtheismWashington Times 650 reads There is 1 Comment Ironic Aaron Blumer - Tue, 07/19/2011 - 7:44am This one struck me as ironic on so many levels. Dawkins gets points for internal consistency. That is, his view of the world warrants exactly how he responded to Watson's complaint. On the other hand, Watson makes no sense at all. Ms. Watson objects to a man in an elevator inviting her to his room for tea on the grounds that this is sexism. But in reality, her objection to the invitation is "sexist." It's dependent on traditional views of the roles of men and women (the traditional view being that men should respect women and honor them as "the weaker vessel"). If the two in the elevator had both been men, would Watson view that as "sexist"? I'm sure she wouldn't (Even less so if both had been women!). But real feminism requires that no objection to anything can be predicated on the idea that men and women are different--and certainly not on the idea that women are generally weaker. Later she complains that Dawkins views women as mere animals. News flash: in atheism we're all just animals.