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.
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.
Just a wild guess (probably wrong; however, wth): I notice this thread, "PETA asks Obama to spare the pardon on turkeys", was started Nov 20th (13 days ago), wherein PETA has come in for some pretty rough criticism and satire, including this pith award finalist:
