Anyone know why the JREF director of communications has resigned, out of protest?

Last edited:
davefoc said:
I always figured there was some way but never went looking. Thanks, although it eliminates one excuse I had for writing something despite a complete absence of knowledge or evidence on the subject. I don't think this will stop me though, I will just need to find another excuse.
Click to expand...

No worries; I sometimes make a post without saying much rather than just subscribing; in some cases that seems the better option, maybe to let people know that you're interested. But it's nice to have the choice.
 
zooterkin said:
No worries; I sometimes make a post without saying much rather than just subscribing; in some cases that seems the better option, maybe to let people know that you're interested. But it's nice to have the choice.
Click to expand...


Still off-topic, but another reason for making a post rather than just subscribing is if you use the Tapatalk app to read the forum. The app will show "Participated" threads, but AFAIK there is no option (at least on iPhone) to include subscribed threads that you haven't posted to in that view.
 
Well she's still listed on the JREF site staff list with her email & phone contact etc
Perhaps they need a Director of Communications so someone can direct a new communication to update the page.
 
Rrose Selavy said:
Well she's still listed on the JREF site staff list with her email & phone contact etc
Perhaps they need a Director of Communications so someone can direct a new communication to update the page.
Click to expand...

The wording in the year end solicitation for funds lacked tact and was pretty insulting, in my opinion.
 
rjh01 said:
In which case she should have just said in her twitter "resigned from JREF" and nothing more. A potential employer sees that and they might think she might bad mouth THEM.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Stating publicly that you are taking an action "in protest" causes people to naturally question your reasons. But didn't she delete that tweet?
 
arthwollipot said:
So she wants everyone to know that she resigned in protest, but doesn't want to air dirty laundry by going into details. Fair enough.
Click to expand...

If you don't let others know what the reason is, does it do any good to resign in protest? It would be like hanging around in front of Coca-Cola and telling people you're protesting against Coca-Cola, but then not telling them why.
 
Last edited:
The Central Scrutinizer said:
If you don't let others know what the reason is, does it do any good to resign in protest? It would be like hanging around in from of Coca-Cola and telling people you're protesting against Coca-Cola, but then not telling them why.
Click to expand...
It is, a little, yes. But speculating about her motives will do more to mislead and little to enlighten. She protested, which means that she was not happy with something. We know that the JREF has some... shall we say "management issues" right now. I'm content with knowing as much as I know now - I don't think we'll learn much more from the source. Anything else is just gossip.
 
Reviewing the twitters this morning, it appears that Ms. Poppy is speaking at an event called "Women In Secularism II" in Washington.

Per a number of Twitter posts, she said something along the lines of (per a tweet from Justin Vacula):

I used to work with someone who talked about mission creep. My response was "You're a mission creep."
Click to expand...

The Center For Inquiry also put out this tweet this morning:

Poppy: if our goal isn't to end suffering, achieve social justice, then what *is* our goal?
Click to expand...

Knowing that the JREF has been steadfast in keeping their message narrowly focused on the actual goals of the organization, and knowing that Ms. Poppy recently left the employ of the JREF "in protest", I think that it is reasonable to conclude that it is highly likely that she was talking about someone at the JREF as this person who talked about mission creep.

What conclusion should be drawn from this? In my opinion, it shows that Ms. Poppy was upset that the JREF refused to take up every pet "social justice" issue that she believed to be important. Thus, in Poppy's mind (apparently), secular groups should be part of a larger movement that could be labeled "social justice" or more likely "progressivism." In other words, apparently, if the JREF did not wholeheartedly take up all the talking points of a radical left-wing ideology, they were not an organization that she could be associated with. I think that it is a reasonable supposition that this is why she quit "in protest." There must have been some pet issue or issues that she wanted the JREF to espouse (perhaps booking the head of PETA as a TAM speaker, who knows), and when they quite reasonably said "that's not our mission, our mission is scientific skepticism, and as an organization we need to avoid mission creep," she was out the door.

If so, I say good riddance. And bravo to the JREF for continuing to realize that skepticism does not demand a particular ideology, and that you can actually be a skeptic if you disagree with Carrie Poppy on issues like tax policy, welfare spending, defense policy, and animal welfare. If people like Ms. Poppy had their way (in my opinion), organizations like the JREF would have to submit all members or attendees at conferences with a long checklist of ideological positions, and unless you scored a 100%, meaning complete agreement, you are not welome.

Bravo JREF.
 
Cleon said:
TB, you're inferring an awful lot from very, very little.
Click to expand...

Do you have a more logical conclusion to reach from the information? I think my logic is sound, although I agree that the amount of information Ms. Poppy provided for her "protest" action in quitting was laughably minuscule.
 
Well, if it's on Freethoughtblogs, consider the source. :rolleyes:

Here's a link to the comment in context. It was a meaningless dig regardless, having zero to do with any discussion of 'mission creep'.
Carrie: Have to ally yourself with social justice movements — that’s the goal. Goal is to promote happiness and end suffering. It’s inherent in any movement to trend toward social justice. Not popular opinion, but interfaith work is a great place to ally ourselves. Grew up a believer, and there was a stepping down process involving becoming a liberal religious person. Liberal religious friends were important allies. Wise to ally with the liberal religious. Downsides – very hard to get people to listen to you when you’re proving more than one point at a time. Good to think about what you have in common. As far as mission creep goes, I used to work with someone whose name I won’t say (HAH!) who would often talk about mission creep and my response was “YOU’RE a mission creep!” *uproar*
Click to expand...

Given the split, rational thinkers in the JRFE vs this lost-their-way bunch, it's likely the comment does refer to someone in the JREF.
 
TsarBomba said:
Do you have a more logical conclusion to reach from the information? I think my logic is sound, although I agree that the amount of information Ms. Poppy provided for her "protest" action in quitting was laughably minuscule.
Click to expand...

I would agree with this. I wish people would be honest about what they are "protesting" if that's the reason they leave somewhere; it's more effective, at any rate.
 
A source this weekend told me it was because they wanted her to sign a non-disclosure agreement, and she balked. Seems odd. Those are pretty standard these days.
 
Aepervius said:
For non profit where no tech or patent is involvved ? That would be odd and creepy.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of potential donations to be had by copying the donor list of a non-profit group and using it at other non-profits in order to increase their donations. One might even be given a job at another non-profit group based on bringing a large donor list.

Another thought that comes to mind is that it's because James Randi is a celebrity. Granted, he's a minor celebrity, but the people who hate him really, really hate him, and would love to have any ammunition to use against him. Perhaps Poppy was going to be working more closely with Randi had she not resigned.

The third thought that comes to mind (I think this one is unlikely) is that Randi is preparing to do another skeptical stunt, such as the pet psychic expose that he did many years ago. It would really ruin the whole thing if the details of the stunt were leaked to the public prior to the stunt running its course. My reason for thinking that this is unlikely is due to Randi's health.
 
Hrm. Between the mission creep thing and this last thing, if all of that is accurate, suggests that maybe the issue was she wanted to use her place at JREF to try to solicit JREF donors for other causes. Hence the "mission creep" remark. As in, wandering off target.

#EDIT: This is, of course, pure speculation, founded on very little.
 
It appears to me that the JREF has been criticized quite a bit for their failure to participate in as much drama as feminists would like to have created.

Meh. Sorry, not interested. I'm quite comfortable with The JREF declining to become a feminist mouthpiece every time some guy decides to do some random thing that some woman finds inappropriate. I'm all for treating women appropriately, but trying to play power publicity games with these situations is disgusting. The second I get the impression that feminism is one of JREF's purposes for existing, I will no longer be interested in supporting it. The way I see it, most feminists don't want equal treatment for women. They want superior treatment. They are more anti-man than pro-woman nowadays.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
It appears to me that the JREF has been criticized quite a bit for their failure to participate in as much drama as feminists would like to have created.

Meh. Sorry, not interested. I'm quite comfortable with The JREF declining to become a feminist mouthpiece every time some guy decides to do some random thing that some woman finds inappropriate. I'm all for treating women appropriately, but trying to play power publicity games with these situations is disgusting. The second I get the impression that feminism is one of JREF's purposes for existing, I will no longer be interested in supporting it. The way I see it, most feminists don't want equal treatment for women. They want superior treatment. They are more anti-man than pro-woman nowadays.
Click to expand...
As this is a skeptical forum for an organization that promotes skepticism, allow me to respond:

1) It is fair and reasonable to be skeptical of the claims being made about inappropriate behavior; but it is also fair and reasonable to be skeptical of claims of innocence. You do not (so far as I'm aware) know any of the actual details of the events in question...yet you are more than ready to conclude that they are just "some guy deciding to do some random thing that some woman finds inappropriate". If it's a case that the guy just hit on her, I might agree; but if it's a case that he was drunkenly groping her, then I'd very much disagree. I don't know what happened. Neither, so far as I can tell, do you. It is rather telling about your own perspective that you simply seem to assume that the actions in question were minor and not worthy of complaint or action.

2) There are lots of guys out there who feel that grabbing a woman's ass, or making blatantly sexual overtures, fall within the range of "some random thing that some woman finds inappropriate". So for the sake of rational debate/discussion, could you please actually define where you'd draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior?

3) This should go without saying, but your apparent attempt to lump all feminists together, based on the actions of a few, are rather lacking in skeptical foundation, also. There are quite a few feminists who take issue with and disagree with some of the more 'radical' voices within the feminist movement.

4) Feminism belongs firmly within the purview of the JREF's mission, where feminist issues coincide with skeptical issues. If feminist issues that had nothing to do with skepticism were to become a focus of the JREF, then you might have a point...but considering that I don't see this happening at all, this seems to be a pure straw man argument.

5) There is no doubt whatsoever that the "skeptical movement" in North America is still a predominantly white male's movement. Go to any skeptical conference, or check out the membership of the JREF forums, and you'll find that the ratio of male to female is grossly skewed. And representation of non-whites is even more grossly skewed. It would seem to me to be incumbent upon any organization dedicated to skepticism to take a skeptical look at why these numbers are so disproportional, and to take action to address them.

As such, taking action to make women feel both more included, and more safe, wouldn't implicitly be "feminist". Seeking more balanced representation of different groups should, in fact, be a main focus of an organization like the JREF, and where events take place that make women feel uncomfortable to participate, such concerns should be looked at and addressed very seriously.

And it is in that regard -- based purely on the correspondence revealed with DJ, and acknowledging that I may not have all the necessary info -- that I feel the JREF failed in this case. Not just in this case, but in others as well, there does seem to be a rather dismissive attitude taken towards women. Again, I'm more than ready (and in fact would be very happy) to amend that attitude based on other, more complete information.

But in Carrie's case, I think that she brings a lot of credibility to this debate through merit of the fact that A) when she left the JREF, she did not publicly comment on the reasons for doing so, did not seek to draw attention to herself, and did nothing that I'm aware of to hurt or tarnish the JREF's reputation, B) she made this issue public only after more quiet behind-the-scenes efforts had been made to address it in a reasonable manner, and C) she still shows what I'd consider significant restraint in discussing her own complaints and problems with the JREF, instead bringing someone else's more serious allegations to light.

There's a whole bunch of information missing here. We don't know the exact nature of the allegations involved; we don't know exactly what discussions took place behind closed doors, or the reasons for the various decisions made. We're in no position whatsoever to be rendering conclusions either for or against the JREF, DJ, or any of the other people involved.

But nor is it fair, or in the nature of a proper skeptical approach, to use straw man arguments and sweeping inaccurate generalizations to simply dismiss everything.

Should we support the JREF? If it were to become a militant feminist organization, perhaps not (but as I mentioned above, I don't see that happening at all). If it were to ignore, justify, or cover up sexually aggressive behavior towards women in their organization, or at their events, also perhaps not.

There isn't enough info yet to make any decision; but there's more than enough info to raise legitimate questions, and put pressure on the JREF and any other related ,to be accountable to their membership, and provide full, detailed answers as to what has actually happened.

However, posts like yours above will have little or nothing to do with such a discussion.


ETA: I wan to clarify that I do not intend to state that I think DJ or the JREF has done anything wrong; only that the evidence we currently have, if true, would indicate a potentially serious problem. I hope that more detailed information will be forthcoming, from all parties, so that a more informed conclusion can be reached.
 
Last edited:
I, for one, am waiting for Grothe and/or someone else in an official JREF capacity to respond to Poppy's additional information and some of the other charges that Grothe was less than respectful with casual remarks to certain community members.

I hope the response is sooner rather than later.
 
Wolfman said:
As this is a skeptical forum for an organization that promotes skepticism, allow me to respond:

1) It is fair and reasonable to be skeptical of the claims being made about inappropriate behavior; but it is also fair and reasonable to be skeptical of claims of innocence. You do not (so far as I'm aware) know any of the actual details of the events in question...yet you are more than ready to conclude that they are just "some guy deciding to do some random thing that some woman finds inappropriate". If it's a case that the guy just hit on her, I might agree; but if it's a case that he was drunkenly groping her, then I'd very much disagree. I don't know what happened. Neither, so far as I can tell, do you. It is rather telling about your own perspective that you simply seem to assume that the actions in question were minor and not worthy of complaint or action.
(...)
Click to expand...

As you said, I don't know what actually happened. Only those who were actually there at the time know what actually happened. I am not downplaying the situation... I am mostly regarding the nitpicking and back and forth on the subject an example of meaningless drama quite intentionally aimed at making some sort of feminist point.

From what I read, they were not merely asking the JREF to refrain from inviting this gentleman to future events. They were asking the JREF to make a public statement saying that he would not be welcome at future events. There is a distinct difference here, and the organization is being asked to take sides on an issue where there is likely some disagreement on what actually happened. I do not suspect that the participants were unaware of the ramifications involved here. Such a public statement could be regarded as a passive-aggressive form of character assassination, and cannot be justified without significant proof of wrongdoing, which I suspect may be lacking.

2) There are lots of guys out there who feel that grabbing a woman's ass, or making blatantly sexual overtures, fall within the range of "some random thing that some woman finds inappropriate". So for the sake of rational debate/discussion, could you please actually define where you'd draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior?
Click to expand...

As with most human behavior, this depends entirely upon the ways in which the participants are interacting. There actually are situations where "grabbing a woman's ass" or "making blatantly sexual overtures" are completely appropriate. In most situations, they are not. Sometimes people misjudge these situations... and other times they blatantly disregard normal guidelines of behavior to the extreme. I decline to judge any specific behavior out of the context in which it was displayed, and without knowing about any former contact between the participants that may or may not have occurred.

I regard the complete abolishment of sexual behavior in the human male to be as much of an extreme, untenable position as being permissive towards random groping by strangers out of context. There are all sorts of positions in between, and I suppose the best policy for anyone is to start subtle and be attentive to any reaction. Some men are comfortable with more risk than others... and some women appreciate that sort of risk taking more than others.

The only specific instance where I can say that it is absolutely wrong in all cases is when a guy has been asked to cease certain behaviors and has failed to do so. The rest depends upon context, and is quite often a matter of debate.

3) This should go without saying, but your apparent attempt to lump all feminists together, based on the actions of a few, are rather lacking in skeptical foundation, also. There are quite a few feminists who take issue with and disagree with some of the more 'radical' voices within the feminist movement.

4) Feminism belongs firmly within the purview of the JREF's mission, where feminist issues coincide with skeptical issues. If feminist issues that had nothing to do with skepticism were to become a focus of the JREF, then you might have a point...but considering that I don't see this happening at all, this seems to be a pure straw man argument.
Click to expand...

I'll freely admit that I have not had much reason to study or follow feminist groups. It is not a particular interest of mine. Much of what I do take note of tends to make me care less about it, not more. I suppose I may have painted with an overly broad brush, as it were. All human conversations possess some degree of generalization. I've only got my experience to go by.

5) There is no doubt whatsoever that the "skeptical movement" in North America is still a predominantly white male's movement. Go to any skeptical conference, or check out the membership of the JREF forums, and you'll find that the ratio of male to female is grossly skewed. And representation of non-whites is even more grossly skewed. It would seem to me to be incumbent upon any organization dedicated to skepticism to take a skeptical look at why these numbers are so disproportional, and to take action to address them.
Click to expand...

I don't see much mystery here at all. Call it a stereotype if you want, but women are more concerned with how they feel about things than the question of whether something is actually true or not... as compared to men, anyway. The question of whether this is a cultural role brought about by tradition or an actual gender difference is irrelevant. The situation exists, and it stands to reason that women will be underrepresented in a skeptical group as a result (due to lack of interest). I do not assume that every female I meet has this trait... I only acknowledge the general trend.
 
Last edited:
Wolfman said:
3) This should go without saying, but your apparent attempt to lump all feminists together, based on the actions of a few, are rather lacking in skeptical foundation, also. There are quite a few feminists who take issue with and disagree with some of the more 'radical' voices within the feminist movement.
Click to expand...

Here's the primary problem when it comes to the schism. "Feminist" is as subjective a term as "God" and no two people define these concepts the same way. Are the vast majority of us "feminist" in the sense that they believe qualified women should be allowed to be accountants? Sure! Those on the other side of the schism are not using this definition of "feminism" and equality is not their goal. They are adhering to dogma. The entire point of skepticism is that we ignore dogmas and instead allow EVIDENCE to guide our decisionmaking.

Do you honestly think that those on the other side of the schism are benefiting the community? Instead of bashing pseudoscience, we're all debating feminist dogma.
 
Manopolus said:
Call it a stereotype if you want, but women are more concerned with how they feel about things than the question of whether something is actually true or not... as compared to men, anyway.
Click to expand...

:confused:

Can you show that that is true? Or is it good enough for you that it feels true?
 
iknownothing said:
:confused:

Can you show that that is true? Or is it good enough for you that it feels true?
Click to expand...

It's quite readily observable in the media they tend to consume.

If you want a study I'm quite sure that there's a few out there (and this notion probably came from an actual source at some point), but you can probably google it a bit easier than I can. I'm also pretty sure that the verbal vs spacial difference in the sexes has been publicized often enough to be common knowledge. It is only a small jump from there.

But yeah... the statement seemed obvious to me, and I haven't actually done any actual research on the matter, if that's what you're asking. Feel free to actively and honestly disagree with it, rather than role playing your "I'm an in-group personality on a skeptical forum" song and dance. Perhaps then we could actually have an honest conversation (No offense, but sometimes overused behaviors get a bit tedious on this forum).

I can also state my opinion (theory) that a random sampling of women who are NOT involved in skeptical groups will NOT tend to select "I fear being groped" or some such as a reason why they are not involved in such things. I feel no need to do this experiment in order to prove the theory, since I'm quite sure of my conclusion without it, and feel no need to prove it to anyone absurd enough to disagree. Any cries for evidence will tend to fall on deaf ears, as I am merely stating an opinion that I suspect a majority of people will agree with.

If it makes you feel any better, just look at the way it was intended: I posited a likely alternative to the notion that more men than women are active in the organization due to rampant sexism. I may have not have expressed it in quite that way (I tend to overstate things), but that was the intent. And yeah, I know there's a bit of a straw man in this bit. Just don't go thinkin' I'm ignorant just because I enjoy a little exaggeration now and then. Such practices make my life more interesting, and my words more colorful. The exaggeration isn't meant to be a sly, hidden thing used to "win" the argument unfairly, but a silly absurdity hanging out for everyone to see. Right or wrong, I think it adds character.

:D
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
It's quite readily observable in the media they tend to consume.

If you want a study I'm quite sure that there's a few out there (and this notion probably came from an actual source at some point), but you can probably google it a bit easier than I can. I'm also pretty sure that the verbal vs spacial difference in the sexes has been publicized often enough to be common knowledge. It is only a small jump from there.

But yeah... the statement seemed obvious to me
Click to expand...

None of that seems solid enough to say that women are more likely than men to be concerned with feelings over facts.

Manopolus said:
Feel free to actively and honestly disagree with it, rather than role playing your "I'm an in-group personality on a skeptical forum" song and dance. Perhaps then we could actually have an honest conversation.
Click to expand...

Yeah...I don't think I'm in any in groups around JREF. Just a single person pointing out (honestly, BTW) a comment that I thought you might want to think about a little bit more. Questioning our assumptions is a good thing, right?
 
iknownothing said:
None of that seems solid enough to say that women are more likely than men to be concerned with feelings over facts.
Click to expand...
Not definitively, no. I'm not even sure if that's the correct way to say it. Perhaps a better assessment would be that they are more interested in questions of unquantifiable social relationships (does he really love you? Take our survey and find out!) than they are of observable facts and material challenges (Is it possible to kill an elephant with a firecracker?). Again, relatively speaking, and without applying general trends to individuals.

I suspect that few readers will have difficulty identifying which sex will be more likely to be interested in each example given.


iknownothing said:
Yeah...I don't think I'm in any in groups around JREF. Just a single person pointing out (honestly, BTW) a comment that I thought you might want to think about a little bit more. Questioning our assumptions is a good thing, right?
Click to expand...

To the final question: absolutely! I do it all the time. However, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." (Freud)

(OK, one more point and I'll stop editing...)

I would tend to suggest that if JREF wants to attract more female attention, they should take a close look at market research and find ways to improve their appeal to the demographic (overvaluing female speakers alone doesn't really do it to any great degree... that's actually more effective in attracting single men, particularly if the speakers are comely). I suppose some amount of drama played out with these feminist types COULD attract more female attention, but I doubt it is good attention, and I suspect that it is unintentional. I don't think that being a minority in the organization is a major factor, either, but I will take into consideration any arguments to this effect, if I see a well supported one (which I have yet to see).
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
Not definitively, no. I'm not even sure if that's the correct way to say it. Perhaps a better assessment would be that they are more interested in questions of unquantifiable social relationships (does he really love you? Take our survey and find out!) than they are of observable facts and material challenges (Is it possible to kill an elephant with a firecracker?). Again, relatively speaking, and without applying general trends to individuals.

I suspect that few readers will have difficulty identifying which sex will be more likely to be interested in each example given.
Click to expand...

It doesn't seem like you've done anything here besides reiterating your initial assertion. I recommend instead that you provide readers with a link to empirical research that supports your claim.

To the final question: absolutely! I do it all the time. However, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." (Freud)
Click to expand...

Just as an aside, it is my understanding that there exists no historical documentation that supports the attribution of this quote to Freud.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom