Secular Woman releases 'Statement of Objection' to Ron Lindsay, CFI
Statement of Objection to Center for Inquiry CEO Ron Lindsay's Actions Regarding Feminism
http://www.secularwoman.org/Statement_of_Objection
My analysis:
The Secular Woman Board of Directors, in consultation with our most active members and supporters, regrets having to express our organization’s deep concern over recent public statements from Mr. Ron Lindsay, Center for Inquiry (CFI) CEO, during and following that organization’s Women in Secularism (WiS) conference this past weekend.
Secular Woman promoted the WiS event heavily with our membership for months. During this period we raised $2190 that enabled seven women, relatively new to the secular movement, to experience an event they would not otherwise have had the means to attend. Based on member feedback, we estimate that another 25 of the reported 300 WiS attendees were at the conference because of Secular Woman’s encouragement. Additionally, 57% of our Board of Directors was present.
Through Secular Woman’s @AbortTheocracy campaign, thousands of our fans, followers and members have been made aware of CFI’s efforts in the area of reproductive rights. In fact, CFI is the only organization to have taken advantage of this service announced to secular leaders on an internal list-serv for leaders in the secular movement.
As 'Big Red' has said, "Cry me a river." So what if SW supported the conference and helped send people to the conference. Good for them. Now, they have "buyer's remorse" because Ron Lindsay was not dogmatic enough to meet their every whims and needs? Just because they support the conference does not mean that they are placated - or have a moral right to object to Ron's skepticism in the opening remarks. Didn't Amy try this, too, with TAM, saying that since she supported the conference so much that it was objectionable for Harriet Hall to wear a t-shirt she didn't like, for people to wear 'fake jewelry,' and such? Page out of that playbook...
If Secular Woman wants their own conference with their own dogma, they ought to go ahead and do that...but this was not their conference and this was CFI's conference...and these were Ron's opening remarks. Ron uses his time and opening remarks how he sees fit.
Given our support and the aims of WiS, we find it stunningly unacceptable that Mr. Lindsay chose to greet our members, our Board, and other attendees with his personal, ill-formed criticisms of feminism rather than welcoming us all to the conference we had promoted and paid to attend.
Ill-informed criticisms of feminism? What are these? Was not Ron, by giving opening remarks, infact welcoming? Ron also said...
"One thing you may have noticed already is that I did not give you a formal welcome to Women in Secularism 2. Of course you are welcome here. We're very happy to have you with us, but this is something you know already, and, although I don’t want to appear ungracious, why take up time to state the obvious, because the reality is we have much work to do, and presumably you came here for substance not rhetoric."
Worse, he instead chose to personally welcome a man who has harassed and antagonized many of the speakers scheduled for the weekend, and who now has an interview about the conference on the front page of the website of A Voice for Men, which has been designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group.
Funny they didn't mention my name this time around when spreading their lies and propaganda - they were happy to do it before concerning the Secular Coaltion for America witch hunt. Perhaps they, too, should #WitchOfTheWeek Melody Hensley for giving me a handshake and welcoming me? How about other CFI staff? It's called professionalism, Secular Woman. Conference attendees are welcomed by conference hosts...and I bet Ron went out of his way to welcome me because of the threat narrative and the ridiculous concerns that were allegedly sent to CFI calling for me to be banned from attending and the like. And, you know, I am sure Ron went around welcoming other conference attendees too - including the Secular Woman board and members.
Anyway, there was no harassment of speakers. In fact, the conference had an anti-harassment policy and I was not ejected from the conference. Oh no! I spoke with AVFM...which actually was not designated by SPLC as a hate group.
SPLC:
First, A Voice For Men has not been labeled a ‘hate site.’ This has been admitted by a representative of the Southern Poverty Law Center who said, “It should be mentioned that the SPLC did not label MRAs as members of a hate movement; nor did our article claim that the grievances they air on their websites – false rape accusations, ruinous divorce settlements and the like – are all without merit.â€
More threat narrative from dogmatic feminists...and who is it who really understands feminism?
They said, in a post explaining their refusal to sign the 'Open Letter':
At Secular Woman, the principle that “feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression†(Hooks, 2000, p. viii) is taken as a given, and not a topic for debate.
Feminism has various approaches and perspectives...and many many many definitions exist and it is quite dubious to state that feminism (bear in mind they treat it like a monolith, so I will for sake of this discussion) is about ending sexism when feminism is almost always exclusively focusing on issues facing women (not men).
We are incredulous that in a conference about women in the secular movement Mr. Lindsay was completely silent about the threats, harassment, and stalking that many atheist women have experienced at the hands of other atheists.
They continue to provide no documentation whatsoever backing this claim - that "threats, harassment and stalking" is directed at "many atheist women" by "other atheists." Why, anyway, should Ron speak about what Secular Woman wants to speak about...?
AND WAIT A SEC!
Ron contibuted to Skepchick's "Speaking Out Against Hate Directed at Women" series!
http://skepchick.org/2012/07/speaking-o ... a-lindsay/
Additionally, we are truly appalled by the tone and content of his blog post, “Watson’s World and Two Models of Communication,â€
Oh, look! They are tone trolling :p
misuses a Secular Woman statement to his own purposes
Misusing?
and claims that those who are active feminists cannot be real reason-and-evidence based secularists
Where was this said?
Not having seen an apology, retraction, or other followup to these official communications, we are forced to arrive at several conclusions:
that Mr. Lindsay’s actions are endorsed by the CFI Board of Directors as consistent with its mission and expectations of leadership
Not necessarily. These are Ron's remarks. While they are on the CFI page, this does not mean the BOD necessarily agrees or disagrees. Since Ron was posting at the conference, little time after the controversy erupted and his speech was delivered, it is safe to assume that the BOD did not even read Ron's remarks and run just went 'solo' with this one (although it would be interesting to learn about CFI policy on their blog posting).
that CFI is content with its limited diversity and doesn’t value the support of Secular Woman or our thousands of members and supporters
Limited diversity? Huh? Not what this list shows:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/about/personnel
Doesn't value the support of SW? Obviously they did because SW had a conference presence, right? Either way, the fact that Ron did not apologize does not lead to the conclusion that SW is not valued by CFI. Thousands of members? Are these paying members or people on their newsletter/email list? How many of these members are dues-paying and not just free members as a result of the SSA drive which may have bumped SW numbers? -
http://www.secularstudents.org/node/4880
that Mr LIndsay’s, and by extension CFI’s, endorsement of the Open Letter, which Mr. Lindsay’s blog violates in every way it could), was a sham
Did Rebecca and PZ 'pick up the phone?'
As a result of Mr. Lindsay’s actions, the past year’s conflicts have been further enflamed, continuing to alienate the demographic showing most growth potential within the secular community - women - not just from CFI, but from the secular movement.
Whose fault is it that conflicts inflamed? Was it Lindsay, giving a very reasonable speech and raising some good skeptical points or the #FTbullies. Look what happens when Amanda Marcotte and Rebecca Watson are invited to be speakers. This entitlement on behalf of SW, RW, AM, and others is tremendous - that the opening speech, delivered by someone who is not them, has to be about their dogma - their threat narrative...
Is it really the case that women are the "demographic showing most growth potential?" What does that even mean? Are not students, anyway? How are women being alienated...at a Women in Secularism 2 conference?
Secular Woman is hopeful that Mr. Lindsay and/or the CFI Board of Directors will offer a formal, complete, and deserved apology and retraction to Secular Woman and all secular women and feminists regarding his “welcome†statement and later blog comments.
Grovel, grovel, grovel. Bow to dogma...and then get accused of a not-pology. ...and is it the case that ALL secular women and feminists disagree with Ron? Of course not. Give me a break Secular Woman.
We trust that Mr. Lindsay and the CFI Board will now, and in the future, actively demonstrate their intolerance of all who harass, threaten, bully, and work to silence women and feminists.
#secularshunning - What is this harassment, threatening, silencing, and bullying anyway - again, no examples as usual.
Finally, Secular Woman seeks open and honest in-person dialogue regarding women, feminism, and the secular community with the CFI Board of Directors.
Interesting. So, who is paying the travel costs?
