2 of 3
2
Point of Inquiry, RIP
Posted: 26 June 2013 10:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1423
Joined  2010-04-22

The thing I got out of it is that Lindsay seemed to imply that there were elements in his audience who adopt the same tactics as their oppressors: to talk loudest and to not allow any nay-say.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 June 2013 05:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4860
Joined  2007-10-05
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 26 June 2013 08:27 AM

Who cried “righteous indignation”?

By default, you are with your threat to resign.

I suggest you read the PoI team’s statement I linked in the original post.

And I would suggest that you read the point instead of missing it. My point being that quitting and running away is not the answer.

Confront and challenge what you find offensive instead of running away. It’s the only way you’ll get to make a difference.

Like I said: Make yer choice.

OK. I just sent a letter to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) letting them know my views on this issue. I have a year or so left on both my subscriptions, so we’ll see how this plays out.

However, unless Ron Lindsay and the CFI Board of Directors change their antediluvian I will not provide financial or social support for the organization. This is not “quitting and running away,” it is a decision to not support an organization that takes the wrong side on a very important social issue.

Women have experienced sexual harassment, been repeatedly groped and endured snide comments at secular/skeptical conventions. When they dared speak out against such behavior they have been subjected to barrages of threats online, including rape threats. Ron Lindsay’s speech at the Women in Secularism Conference showed his total incomprehension of those issues. Instead of welcoming the women to the conference he chose to explain why he did not need to welcome them. Instead of acknowledging the unconscionable behavior of some men at these conferences he chose to chastise women because they ask for civilized treatment and respect. Then he put his foot in his mouth and said he didn’t like women telling men to “shut up and listen.” Aside from being a very foolish thing to say, it is a straw man argument and the people at the conference were understandably indignant.

Maybe I should apply for a job as Lindsay’s speechwriter.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 June 2013 06:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

However, unless Ron Lindsay and the CFI Board of Directors change their antediluvian I will not provide financial or social support for the organization. This is not “quitting and running away,” it is a decision to not support an organization that takes the wrong side on a very important social issue.

Actually, it IS quitting and running away. What you might want to consider doing is getting INTO this team in order to make changes. The other way is a decision to become…simply….irrelevant.

Like I said: Make yer choice.

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 June 2013 06:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4860
Joined  2007-10-05

I did volunteer to work with them at the end of my letter.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 June 2013 06:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2011-08-15

Reading the posts I wonder if we all read the same speech? My take on it is that Lindsey was genuinely attempting to link to the audience by first discussing the traditional views about women. His central message however became blurred IMO with the “shut up and listen” comment which appears to be heart the dissent coming from the Feminists. Given what Rebecca Watson has blogged about I can see what angered them when Lindsey made the statement. I really don’t think that his motive was to silence dissent or show disrespect to the feminist movement but to state that skeptics are fellow travelers furthering the goals of progressivism. That being said, his response to Watson’s blog was way out of character and amounted to an unwarranted ad hominem attack that led to the backlash. The “apology”, watered down as it was only added fuel to the fire.

Personally I have a great respect for the aims and goals of this organization and for the administrators and moderators who run it. I feel the same way about most of the members on this forum. Lindsey made an error in judgement and IMO needs to apologize to Watson for his remarks and then continue furthering the goals of CFI. He isn’t the organization, we the members are and we shouldn’t abandon our principles because the head shed put his foot in his mouth. I still have respect for the guy but maybe he should look to a member of the feminist community to parse his next speech to the Women in Secularization Conference.


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 June 2013 06:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4860
Joined  2007-10-05

Lindsay did issue a sincere apology to Watson for his screed against her. The CFI board’s apology and Lindsay’s subsequent apology for the speech came across as insincere.

I think EOC is right, instead of abandoning CFI I need to get involved and work to change the organization. There is important work to be done, and CFI has the resources to accomplish good things. We just need to get the right people in charge.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 June 2013 08:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2011-08-15

Lindsay did issue a sincere apology to Watson for his screed against her. The CFI board’s apology and Lindsay’s subsequent apology for the speech came across as insincere.

I think EOC is right, instead of abandoning CFI I need to get involved and work to change the organization. There is important work to be done, and CFI has the resources to accomplish good things. We just need to get the right people in charge.

I really don’t think the backlash is over yet as I’m certain there are more members who feel the way you do. Some will probably pull out in protest or disgust and it may fall on the board to replace him or he may resign. Your second statement says it best. There is important work to be done. The org. Needs to mend fences and move on.


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 June 2013 12:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

I realize I don’t have the background of the first Women’s Secular Conference nor the behavior and comments that may have occurred there, however, I downloaded his speech to a flash drive and got around to reading it after I had gone to bed this evening.  I was so confused that I had to get up and onto the Forum even though it’s midnight here. 

At this point, I couldn’t see anything amiss with that talk.  Darron, could you identify the specific statements that were so upsetting?  Meanwhile, I’ll go back and download the comments following his talk since I didn’t do that earlier.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 June 2013 12:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

I couldn’t get the text of Rebecca Watson (Wilson?), but I did get the analysis so I’ll go back to bed and read them there.

I tried to wade through the comments following Lindsay’s speech, but on both sides they were repetitive and far too wordy. 

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 June 2013 12:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

I’m glad to see that you’re not quitting, Darron.

I read everything and feel just as confused as some of the others here in this regard. Perhaps it is the differences in our experiences which make some perceive an insult where others don’t. I personally don’t care if I’m insulted in the heat of debate as we are emotional beings that don’t always intend the actual harms we incidentally express in communicating. I’ve been accused before by some acquaintances of having some anger issue in the midst of some discussion. Confused, I would try to explain to this person that I am far from it and whatever you are perceiving is perhaps my natural zeal for discussion or something. Thinking that that is a sufficient explanation, I then hope that we can carry on and get back to our discussion at hand. Instead, I am charged doubly for it as somehow even my explanation was interpreted as assuring my ire. So now I’m off track with the original argument and am feeling betrayed that my own words are insufficient to console this person. Now I am becoming angry because the frustration of the accusation is getting insoluble. And thus, I indeed have proven my anger!

I actually disagree with associating feminism to represent a significant stance on being skeptical or humanist and feel that overt support should not be granted to the cause because it is extraneous and irrelevant to the cause. Whether a majority of people who are feminists are also skeptics or humanists, the association dictates to others that in order to be feminist, you must not be religious. Not only is this absurd, there are many women who are not religious and yet find themselves indifferent or in disagreement with the general feminist ideologies. I know many such women more than any other. In fact, their are many women who want to embrace the advantages of the very supposed weaknesses that women are claimed to have been imposed by through patriarchy.

I still have yet to meet a girl who embraces any weaknesses of some major stereotypical man. The patriarchy that is presumed as some derogatory assault against women is actually coming from as many women as they are from the men…if not moreso!!

The term, feminist, is itself descriptive of some favor towards women over men. I think the term, humanist, if it is truly meant to assure fairness for all humans, is sufficient and unbiased.

Another factor to take in consideration is that associating feminism with atheism, skepticism, or any other similar cause discriminates other women and alienates them from active participation and getting the sincere help that these groups can actually serve. I stand for equality of the sexes and gender choices. But I recognize that feminism does not represent all women appropriately, regardless of those who call themselves assure.

As a man, I too am discriminated. ...and equally severely at most times. And feminists would suggest that I may too start a group of masculines to address these issues. Well, I say, thank you for the permission, but I stand for all people and believe the issue is to be resolved collectively and inclusively.

For those men who also sincerely believe that women are the oppressed, it says more about you than the rest of us who disagree. I say, try looking in the mirror and ask yourself why things are going so well for you as opposed to other men.

[ Edited: 27 June 2013 12:59 AM by Scott Mayers ]
 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 June 2013 01:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

It appears that we’re getting spammed. Is anyone noticing?

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 June 2013 07:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

I did volunteer to work with them at the end of my letter.

it’s a good start! wink

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 June 2013 05:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4860
Joined  2007-10-05
Occam. - 27 June 2013 12:08 AM

I realize I don’t have the background of the first Women’s Secular Conference nor the behavior and comments that may have occurred there, however, I downloaded his speech to a flash drive and got around to reading it after I had gone to bed this evening.  I was so confused that I had to get up and onto the Forum even though it’s midnight here. 

At this point, I couldn’t see anything amiss with that talk.  Darron, could you identify the specific statements that were so upsetting?  Meanwhile, I’ll go back and download the comments following his talk since I didn’t do that earlier.

Occam

Wasting four or five sentences explaining why he didn’t need to welcome the women to the conference was bizarre, but not offensive. The offensive part came when Lindsay started talking about privilege, and how women use their privilege to tell men to “shut up and listen” when discussing feminist issues. This is a classic straw man argument. Women are not in a positiion of privilege in our society, and the women at the conference have not been going around telling men to “shut up and listen.” As I mentioned earlier in this thread, even at secular/skeptical conferences women are subject to sexual harassment, groping and unwanted advances. The women Lindsay was addressing ask for civility and respect, and when they complain about the sexual harassment, groping and unwanted advances they are vilified from all sides, including receiving threats of physical harm. Lindsay’s speech ignored those problems and focused on a false premise making the women at the conference the offenders.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 June 2013 06:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

I think you are confusing two things here, Darron: women and feminists. Big difference. Criticizing feminists doesn’t necessarily mean one is a sexist, just like disagreeing with the approach of, say, the The Black Panther Party doesn’t make one a racist. There are many different ways to go about a problem and I see no reason why Lindsay or anyone else shouldn’t form an opinion on what they think works and what doesn’t.

[ Edited: 28 June 2013 07:23 AM by George ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 June 2013 06:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4860
Joined  2007-10-05

I see, George. Like Lindsay you’ll ignore the reality that women are being harassed, groped and threatened and believe that women are in a position of privilege and telling men to not discuss feminist issues. How is the weather on your planet?

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2