cathy wrote:A foolish idea, but I don't believe for a moment he intended to segregate women, any more than he would force car mechanics or gardeners into special pages and those pages only.
Sorry do you mean Richard Dawkins didn't intend to segregate women or the Islamists didn't intend to segregate them? You've lost me a bit?
I think whenever he tackles Islam or RCC or christianity his own unconscious sexism puts him on dodgy ground but I'm not clear what you're on about here.
I don't think Dawkins intended to segregate women, full stop. Quite how his "unconscious sexism" leads him to devote a page on his blog to denigrating sexual segregation, I fail to understand.
As for my remarks, I'm simply saying that a newspaper's having a section "for women" neither forces women to read only that section nor forbids men to read it. Compare that with the Islamists' attempts to enforce sexual segregation in a public lecture in a university lecture theatre!
In the final analysis, what goes on in journalism is about making money, not compulsion according to religious dogma.
I'm sure Tzortzis will be delighted to see secularists worrying about the odd mote whilst neglecting his extremely large beam.