Petition to Represent Women who feel Welcome in Secularism

[Zenspace]

curriejean: well done, I'll sign that!

Same here - really well done! Second the suggestion to run it by the other women listed elsewhere. They will most likely be ones to help get the word out so their input would be doubly valuable.

[Zenspace]

i'm friends with Maria Maltseva. Should I direct her to this page?

[curriejean]

Thanks again Renee, definitely helpful.

Maria has already gotten back to me actually, with a supportive message. Not everyone has gotten back to me, and some might not at all, which is fine. Others have generally supportive sentiments but don't necessarily desire personal involvement -- understandable. I've had no suggested edits so far, which is what I'm mainly looking for.

[sacha]

Thanks, Renee. How 'bout just a plain old, "Requesting your input in a thread about a petition for women in the secular/atheist/skeptic community: http://bit.ly/14JYGmw "

this needs a non-slymepit link.

[Zenspace]

Thanks again Renee, definitely helpful.

Maria has already gotten back to me actually, with a supportive message. Not everyone has gotten back to me, and some might not at all, which is fine. Others have generally supportive sentiments but don't necessarily desire personal involvement -- understandable. I've had no suggested edits so far, which is what I'm mainly looking for.

The fact that FftB et al get direct mentions will put some off, even if they agree. I figured Maria would be into it, as she has direct experience with them.

It will be interesting to see who signs on once it goes public.

[JackSkeptic]

It is a difficult balance between being specific or sticking just to general principles. I do feel now is the time for both, which the statement has included. They are doing untold damage to a lot of good people with their climate of fear so hopefully the petition will get the support it deserves.

Anyway /mansplaining mode off and back to my misogyny.

[zenbabe]

Might be enough to simply state the opinions which are in opposition to the attitude of the petition, perhaps not entirely but wherever possible, without "naming names". Would help to shorten the petition a little.

For example, I think you could cut this line "We do not require protection from misogyny as demanded by the ideological camp of Freethought Blogs, Atheism Plus, Skepchick, and Secular Women" since you address anti harassment protections in the following paragraph, and you already stated above it that we don't find the community mysogynist.

But I like this line "We have found ourselves marginalized by the actions and moral proscriptions emerging from Skepchick, Freethought Blogs, Atheism Plus and Secular Women". I think it's worth being specific there, though if you change it I'll still sign :D

Yay "chilling effect" got in, Jack!

It's really looking good curriejean.
/le cheer

[Michael K Gray]

For example, I think you could cut this line "We do not require protection from misogyny as demanded by the ideological camp of Freethought Blogs, Atheism Plus, Skepchick, and Secular Women"...

Or... one might simply replace "demanded" with "mandated", to add a fragrant frisson of the Pun-jab?

[Skep tickle]

Might be enough to simply state the opinions which are in opposition to the attitude of the petition, perhaps not entirely but wherever possible, without "naming names". Would help to shorten the petition a little.

For example, I think you could cut this line "We do not require protection from misogyny as demanded by the ideological camp of Freethought Blogs, Atheism Plus, Skepchick, and Secular Women" since you address anti harassment protections in the following paragraph, and you already stated above it that we don't find the community mysogynist.

But I like this line "We have found ourselves marginalized by the actions and moral proscriptions emerging from Skepchick, Freethought Blogs, Atheism Plus and Secular Women". I think it's worth being specific there, though if you change it I'll still sign :D

Yay "chilling effect" got in, Jack!

It's really looking good curriejean.
/le cheer

Ah, it strikes me that there should probably be the word "forum" after "Atheism Plus" otherwise cue inevitable response about how we don't understand that Atheism Plus isn't the A+forum and even transcends the listed sites/groups and is sweetness and light and perfection that we just are too close-minded or evil or something to see.

[Stretchycheese]

Another person who might provide feedback is Katie Graham:
http://westcoastatheist.wordpress.com/

[curriejean]

Jack - For the record, you've been mirroring my position very closely here. Kind of perfectly, actually.

zenbabe - I think you're right about that line. It's redundant. I do want to name the groups elsewhere in the text as a middle path between being too general or too specific.

Michael - I like that. 'Mandated.'

Skep tickle - General defenders of Aplus have been divisive in their support of it too. They'd be right about it transcending the forums, at least. One example:
Apologetics are probably inevitable. Better, I think, to thumb our noses at that for now and engage later if necessary.

Stretchycheese - I've checked out her blog and her supportive letter to Lindsay is awesome. I'm having difficulty finding means of private contact, though.

As for any PR-angle concerns about the Slymepit being the origin of this effort, sure some might be turned off by it, but the petition itself speaks out against guilt by association and comment moderation. I like this place because it's a conglomerate of free speakers. And, the Pitters who came up with this idea and helped develop it have been indispensable. So in my view, the 'Pit is the best place for this to have come from.

[Tkmlac]

Hey folks. Love this idea. I think instead of listing specific things we agree/don't agree with about certain ideologies, I think we ought to stick to our commitment to open and civil debate and the right of people to hold and express differjng viewpoints without being personally attacked. I'd also like to see something in there about civility and being charitable about our opponents positions, but it's not necessary. I wouldn't expect everyone to get on board with a civility pledge or anything. I know a few months ago I couldn't have signed one because I simply wasn't ready to shed the snark against FTB. That part's really optional and open for discussion.

Thanks for thinking of me Stretchycheese! If anyone ever wants to contact me my email is tkmlac@gmail.com

[curriejean]

Tkmlac: Thanks for the support. I can relate to your wariness about being too specific about beliefs. I'm very happy with the way the petition/statement no longer even mentions feminism itself, since while this problem is related to feminism it isn't at all synonymous with feminism. On civility though -- I think the text itself strongly implies the importance of civility and the concluding paragraph promotes it a bit more directly. I'd like to leave it at that, the #1 reason being keeping wordcount to a minimum.

Here's the next draft, also. I've been editing it and undoing most of the edits for days now. It seems to me that it wants to be what it wants to be.

====

We, The Women Undersigned, Feel Welcome in Mainstream Secular, Atheist and Skeptic Groups

We, as women of the secular/atheist/skeptic community, find that our claims are weighed on their merits, rather than weighed on our gender. We believe such courtesy must be afforded to everyone, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, political/ideological affiliation, community ranking or social class.

We do not find the community to be misogynist. We feel safe and welcome here. While we can't deny that sexism might occasionally show itself in isolated incidents, as it would in any community, we do not find such potential incidents to be in any way reflective of the wider movement.

We believe the underrepresentation of women and minorities in secular/atheist/skeptic activism should be studied objectively and discussed openly, without reliance on ideological adherence or appeals to emotion.

We believe that if anti-harassment policies are enacted at conferences, they must address issues with restraint in a way that acknowledges all concerned parties without overstating the pervasiveness or severity of infractions. Such policies must also include safeguards to prevent their abuse as speech-limiting weapons against critical examinations of beliefs. Some of us do not personally require any policy protections beyond those already provided by existing law: we already feel empowered, as individual adults, to effectively respond to harassment if it occurs.

We have found ourselves marginalized by many of the actions and moral proscriptions emerging from Skepchick, Freethought Blogs, Atheism Plus and Secular Woman. In regard to this sphere, we do feel silenced, overlooked and mocked. This ideological camp claims to speak for women, but refuses to listen to us. It also speaks hatefully of both men and women, but refuses to listen to them. Examples include the constant censorship of blog post criticism, the continual assumptions of guilt by association, and the popularity of a meme which disparagingly mocks our desire to communicate: "Freeze Peach." Such behavior creates a divisive, unwelcoming, judgmental atmosphere which has had a chilling effect on free and open discussion.

Some women in the secular/atheist/skeptic community are afraid to use our real names online, let alone attend conferences, because we fear being threatened, smeared and attacked by this ideological camp, as has happened to other women.

We are aware that the silencing tactics, accusations, shaming and smearing campaigns employed by influential representatives of Skepchick, Freethought Blogs, Atheism Plus and Secular Woman have included calls to interfere with the careers and personal lives of many valuable contributors to the secular/atheist/skeptic movement. We are witnessing an effort to purge supposed undesirables from the movement, justified by a mixture of personal agenda and political affiliation. We do not support this.

We are aware of a campaign, headed by Amanda Marcotte and others, to remove Ronald A. Lindsay from his position as CEO of the Center for Inquiry. We do not support this effort. Mr. Lindsay has shown strong, caring support of women and their rights, and has bolstered this support by encouraging equality, open inquiry and critical thinking. We support Mr. Lindsay's ongoing role as the CEO of the Center for Inquiry, and we acknowledge the risk he has taken in speaking his mind.

Likewise, we acknowledge the risks some are taking right now, and the risks anyone else may take in the future, by speaking their minds in in criticism of claims made by this ideological camp or others.

If we're going to work together, men and women must continue to listen to and care for one another as individual human beings. Let's keep on furthering the movement's effort to educate anyone who will listen about the nature of scientific thinking, about the need for open dialogue, and about the value of compassionate, rational ethics.

If we can't do it, no one can.

[John Greg]

Seems pretty good, but I, for one, still feel it is a bit too long.

And a minor point: "speaking their minds in in criticism" (third from last paragraph): one too many "in"s.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Also that women are feeling marginalised and patronised by their actions. Chilling effect on free and open discussion. Not Social Justice. Creation of a divisive and judgemental atmosphere. Politics not rational beliefs being their standard.

Shouldn't that be "matronized"? :lol:

[curriejean]

Seems pretty good, but I, for one, still feel it is a bit too long.

And a minor point: "speaking their minds in in criticism" (third from last paragraph): one too many "in"s.

I had no idea where to start, and then managed to trim it down from 630 to 527. Damn, 1/6 gone. When you don't think you can cut any more... you can cut a little more. Seems it needed that. Thanks for the push, John. Latest version:

=====

We, The Women Undersigned, Feel Welcome in Mainstream Secular, Atheist and Skeptic Groups

We, as women of the secular/atheist/skeptic community, find that our claims are weighed on their merits, rather than weighed on our gender. We believe such courtesy must be afforded to everyone, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, political/ideological affiliation, community ranking or social class.

We do not find the community to be misogynist. We feel safe and welcome here. While sexism might occasionally show itself in isolated incidents, as it would in any community, we do not find such incidents to be in any way reflective of the wider movement.

We believe the underrepresentation of women and minorities in secular/atheist/skeptic activism should be studied objectively and discussed openly, without reliance on ideological adherence or appeals to emotion.

We believe that if anti-harassment policies are enacted at conferences, they must acknowledge all concerned parties without overstating the ubiquity of infractions. Policies must also include safeguards to prevent their abuse as speech-limiting weapons against criticisms of beliefs. Some of us do not personally require policy protections beyond those already provided by law: we feel empowered, as individual adults, to effectively respond to harassment if it occurs.

We have found ourselves marginalized by many actions and moral proscriptions emerging from Skepchick, Freethought Blogs, Atheism Plus and Secular Woman. In regard to this sphere, we do feel silenced. This ideological camp claims to speak for women, but refuses to listen to us. It also speaks hatefully of both men and women, but refuses to listen to them. Examples include the constant censorship of blog post criticism, the frequent assumptions of guilt by association, and the popularity of a meme which mocks communication efforts: "Freeze Peach." This behavior creates a divisive, unwelcoming atmosphere which has a chilling effect on open discussion.

We are aware that the silencing tactics, accusations, shaming and smearing campaigns employed by influential representatives of Skepchick, Freethought Blogs, Atheism Plus and Secular Woman have included calls to interfere with the careers and personal lives of many valuable contributors to the secular/atheist/skeptic movement. We are witnessing an effort to purge supposed undesirables from the movement, justified by a mixture of personal agenda and political affiliation. We do not condone this. Some of us are afraid to use our real names online, let alone attend conferences, because we fear we may be subjected to similar repercussions.

We are aware of a campaign, headed by Amanda Marcotte and others, to remove Ronald A. Lindsay from his position as CEO of the Center for Inquiry. We do not support this effort. Mr. Lindsay has addressed women's equality with benevolence and brains. We endorse his role as the CEO of the Center for Inquiry, and we acknowledge the risk he has taken in speaking his mind. Likewise, we acknowledge the risks anyone else may take by criticizing this ideological camp's claims.

To work together, men and women must continue to listen to and care for one another as individual human beings. Let's all keep on moving forward in championing scientific thinking, open discourse, and rational ethics. If we can't do it, no one can.

[SPACKlick]

It's looking good but I also agree it's a bit long.

I'd replace While with Whilst in paragraph 3 (start of second sentence)

In paragraph 5 "some of us do not personally require" reads oddly, would something like "some of us have no desire for" as nobody really requires these policies but some people want them and others don't. I don't really have a coherent thought there, ooh look a butterfly...

In the last sentence can we have "critical thinking" or "rational thinking" instead of "scientific thinking"?

And I couldn't find anything to cut, I'd say your good.

But what would I know?

[John Greg]

Whilst is chiefly British, middle English. While would be the correct usage in most of the rest of the English speaking world.

curriejean, I think you are doing a stand-up job with this. Congrats.

[curriejean]

I'll change "personally require" to "desire."

I've also been juggling the word for the kind of thinking for a while. I think I still want to stick to 'scientific thinking' because I've got 'rational ethics' already, and 'critical thinking' would make it a bit redundant. Aaand as far as I can see, I don't think I can make it any shorter without taking meaning away at this point. But thank you, and enjoy your butterfly. :D

And thank you too John, this has been a rigorously educational experience.

[curriejean]

And now, the petition/statement needs beta testers. PM me for secrit link.

[curriejean]

Oh and, I'd like to stick to women testers because we're testing the signing process.

[Skep tickle]

I would be delighted to sign except that this one line gives me pause: "We are aware that the silencing tactics, accusations, shaming and smearing campaigns employed by influential representatives of Skepchick, Freethought Blogs, Atheism Plus and Secular Woman..."

This may be well beyond the "asking for suggested changes" stage, however I would not want to make a claim like that against a group if they might not have engaged in all of these behaviors ("and") or even in most of them.

So, calling anyone & everyone who cares to educate or remind me or weigh in:

1) Does "Atheism Plus" here refer to the forum (which would be similar to the others, which are groups, blogs, or groups of blogs) or to the movement? I think it would help to specify.

If "forum": Which evidence is there for "influential representatives of "Atheism Plus forum" shaming/etc? Are the influential people Christina, Carrier, McCreight, or someone else? Christina & McCreight (I think) worked on the petition to remove Vacula but only have a handful of posts at A+ forum, and that wasn't the main site of the effort on that petition. Carrier talks about Atheism Plus in divisive terms but as a movement, AFAIK has no posts on the forum. The A+ forum is a problematic place (which a well-placed and accurate Trigger Warning Before Participation on the front page could completely alleviate) but I'm not aware of them trying to do any silencing or smearing outside of the forum, which is very easy to leave (there's a well-worn path which ceepolk would be happy to point out).

If the petition said "Atheism Plus movement" rather than just "Atheism Plus" (which could mean the forum, since the others are blogs or relatively identifiable groups of people) I'd see it as more accurate, however then it seems redundant with the mentions of FtB (and Skepchick? maybe; and Secular Woman? not sure)

2) Which influential people at Secular Woman have tried to silence, shame, or smear anyone? I know they said in their response letter to the open one calling for civility that they wouldn't tolerate disagreement w/ their definition of feminism but that's different than what Myers, Zvan, Watson, Benson do; one could simply let them remove themselves from the discussion, then.

They ARE part of the effort to oust Lindsay but they presented their thoughts to his Board in a letter, which is the way one goes about these things, if one truly thinks the leader of an organization does not represent the organization and should be canned. And he currently has use of the CFI blog (or did, until after WiS2). So I don't see how that's "silencing".

Thanks for any thoughts on this (or, rephrasing if it seems appropriate and not too late).

[Skep tickle]

curriejean and I have discussed above in PM's, no need for other feedback unless it's burning a hole in someone's pocket

[Stretchycheese]

Good luck with the petition. :) It will definitely help disrupt the FTB/Skepchick crowd's narrative that the schism is a male vs. female misogyny problem and instead more rightly portray it as a dogmatic ideological feminism problem.

They'll be put in the unenviable position of dismissing a large group of intelligent, successful, and independent skeptic women as chill girls, sister punishers or handmaidens of patriarchy who have no agency. This will only further reinforce the view that they don't in fact speak for women, but a narrow and divisive and ideological perspective.

[curriejean]

http://i.imgur.com/O6PAGFt.png

Thank you all! We are live! Please click and sign if you find it represents you, and share the link far and wide.

All signatures gathered during beta testing have been erased, so anyone who already signed will need to sign again.

Many cheers to everyone who helped out with the composition and supported this effort.

Many more cheers and thank-yous to the user agarybuseychristmas who is responsible for creating the site and donating hours of custom coding work.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Does "Atheism Plus" here refer to the ... blogs ... or to the movement?

I'm unaware of any movement beyond the FtB bloggers.

[JackSkeptic]

A certain Ophelia Benson is on the signed list. Of course there are several guesses to its appearance including the fact it may be genuine. Somehow I doubt that.

[Dick Strawkins]

Are you guys monitoring the IPs of those that sign the list?
I suggest you do this ASAP as the list is bound to attract trolls who will impersonate others to provoke a reaction.
I'm pretty sure that the 'Ophelia F Benson' signing is exactly that.

[Dick Strawkins]

I just want to say well done to curriejean.
64 have signed already including some well known names in skepticism.
:clap:

[Oof]

I wish I were a woman so I could put my name to it. What if I'm in drag while I do it?

http://abload.de/img/interestingc5u2n.jpg

[Skep tickle]

Anybody know if it's been posted at JREF yet?

[LMU]

Anybody know if it's been posted at JREF yet?

Mm that's a good idea. This thread would be also be a good place too. Also has Harriet Hall been contacted? It is a similar spirit as her t-shirt but in the form of a petition.

[Skep tickle]

I've email a mutual acquaintance to request he or she relay the skepticwomen link to Harriet Hall.

[Skep tickle]

I've sent an email to an acquaintance, a woman who has posted periodically at JREF in the A+ thread there.

[Skep tickle]

Link is up at JREF in the Atheism Plus / Freethought Blogs thread there:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... ost9277094

She says she signed but her name doesn't yet show - are signatures going to moderation for assignment to the most appropriate list?

[windy]

"Terroja Muslima Saghan"? :think:

[JackSkeptic]

I couldn't see a link to the petition here. Maybe it is hidden in all the posts. So I'll repeat it.

http://www.skepticwomen.com/welcome-statement

[Stretchycheese]

The petition needs a bit of cleaning up. A lot of trolls have been at it lately.