Open Stories Foundation---Dehlin, Money, and compensation

[cinepro]

5 hours ago, juliann said:

Call me surprised https://medium.com/@ryanmcknight_61338/the-rift-that-could-tear-apart-the-post-mormon-community-7c9c26bba3ec

Honestly, it is situations like this that show the true measure of some people.  As Ryan points out (and many others have), there are aspects of this that touch on many criticisms people have of the Church itself.  Obviously, the Church presents itself as something entirely different in nature than the OSF, but the principles still hold true regardless of claims of divine origin and guidance.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, juliann said:

Call me surprised https://medium.com/@ryanmcknight_61338/the-rift-that-could-tear-apart-the-post-mormon-community-7c9c26bba3ec

Good summary without being potentially inflammatory.

[smac97]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No. That's not what I'm saying at all. There is no logical reason why I must automatically assume the man is correct if I don't assume the woman is correct. I'm saying that a claim should be heard and considered based on merit, not based on the gender of the person making the claim.

I agree with HJW.  I have made the same point a few times on this board.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

I can't speak for anyone else, but I sometimes refrain from commenting about "women's topics" because I sometimes feel that my comments are construed not on their merits, but on the gender of the person giving them voice (that would be me).  I also occasionally get a whiff of misandry in such discussions, and in that I have no interest.  

...

Quote

Part of the problem comes from seeing a problem in the church. How does a woman raise up solving this problem (let's assume it really is a problem) without men (and often women) going into full defensive mode? I say "full" because it is only natural to be defensive, but at some point we need to realize it doesn't need to be a battle. 

Well, one way would be to cease attempting to import "gender wars" into the Restored Gospel.  The Gospel is not a zero sum game, where women can only progress by taking something away from men (or vice versa), or where women and men are given identical roles.  I think this mentality underlies some of the discussions of "women's topics."  That mentality is, in many ways, fundamentally adversarial.  So it shouldn't be a surprise when men in the Church take exception to being accused of hatred or contempt for women, all evidence to the contrary, because the "gender wars" narrative demands such hostilities.

Let me give you an example: I once criticized Jana Reiss on her blog for her comments about a particular topic.  I did not make a single reference to her gender, nor did I question her character or integrity.  I just strongly disagreed with her remarks and explained in detail the basis for my disagreement.  There was an immediate torrent of blowback of my comments, many of which took exception to me, a man, disagreeing with Jana, a woman, solely because I am a man and she is a woman.  In fact, even Jana herself chimed in and said: "One might wonder also how the reputation of the Church is negatively affected when a male member of that Church suggests to a female member that she has no right to express opinions in the public square, and would do better to keep them to herself." I responded as follows: "Oh brother. Don’t hide behind your gender. First, I have said nothing about your comments that pertain one whit to you being a woman. Second, I would have said the same things to a male church member posting remarks such as yours. Third, I have said nothing to the effect that you have 'no right to express opinions in the public square,' or that you should keep them to yourself."

In my view, women can't have it both ways.  They cannot present their views and expect that those views be put on equal footing with the views of men (a sentiment I wholeheartedly endorse), but then turn around and expect deferential and privileged treatment for their views because those views come from women.  If an idea has merit, then let it be demonstrated, not presumed because of the gender of the idea's presenter.

Having read through this thread, I have found myself more or less subconsciously abstaining from chiming in.  Not because I don't have thoughts to share, but because I sometimes refrain from commenting about "women's topics" because I sometimes feel that my comments about such topics are construed not on their merits, but on the gender of the person giving them voice (that would be me).

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree that there should be no default to doubt women. You seem to be advocating the default should be to doubt men. I think both are wrong even though I agree that culturally it has been more common to be prejudiced towards the man.

I think that, in the main, we should give each other the benefit of the doubt.  We should presume we are each speaking in good faith.  However, that is very much a rebuttable presumption.  And if there are allegations of serious misconduct against a person, I think it is appropriate to reserve judgment until more evidence is forthcoming.

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think there is a tendency to question the first person (male or female) who is making a bombshell kind of claim.

Bombshells should be questioned.  Again, I think a benefit of the doubt in such circumstances is preferable to kneejerk credulity.

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The claim itself can be destabilizing for people so it's natural to want some evidence.

Quite so.  An unsubstantiated accusation alone can ruin a person's reputation, even his/her life.

There seems to be a lot of vitriolic accusations in this thread against John Dehlin.  It would be nice to have a place where actual evidence is marshaled.  There have been some first-person narratives about Mr. Dehlin's behavior, but they seem vague and based more on subjective feelings/opinions about facts, as opposed to attempting to succinctly and dispassionately recite the facts.

But maybe I need to read more closely.  This thread is rather long, and I've been glossing over things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'd think if a woman came to me and told me she was being sexual harassed in some way, I'd think she was telling the truth. 

I can't say the same.  Far too broad a stroke of that particular brush.

Do I know this woman?  Do I have experience with her?  Do I have an accurate measure of her credibility and character and trustworthiness?

Do I know the accused?  Do I have experience with him?

What are the circumstances and context under which "a woman came to me and told me she was being sexual{ly} harassed?"  Am I an attorney?  A police officer?  A prosecutor?  A judge?  A therapist?  A friend?  A reporter?  A politician?  An ecclesiastical leader?

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It'd be my assumption, I think, unless I had some reason to doubt. 

There seem to be a lot of variables that could make a knee-jerk assumption like that . . . problematic.

What about the accused?  Is it appropriate to make an assumption based on an uncorroborated allegation which, by its terms, indicts his character and attacks his reputation?

Why extend to a woman the benefit of the doubt (that she is speaking the unvarnished truth about having been sexually harassed by Mr. X) but not to a man (Mr. X)?  Is that assumption based on the accuser's gender?  On the accused's gender?  On both?  Is such a gender-based assumption appropriate?

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

The problem is when it comes to harassment this might not be a he said/she said thing.  They both could be right or both wrong.  Some, men in particular, don't often seem to get when they are crossing the line of harassment and feel their behavior is harmless when it is not. 

I'm not sure there is a "line of harassment."  Rather, I think it's a rather gray, foggy area, the boundaries of which are difficult to discern and not fixed with anything close to precision or clarity.

FWIW, I think the Church's teachings about communications are excellent, in that they encourage the Saints to stay out of this gray, foggy area.  Consider this excerpt from For the Strength of Youth:

Quote

How you communicate should reflect who you are as a son or daughter of God. Clean and intelligent language is evidence of a bright and wholesome mind. Good language that uplifts, encourages, and compliments others invites the Spirit to be with you. Our words, like our deeds, should be filled with faith, hope, and charity.

Choose friends who use good language. Help others improve their language by your example. Be willing to politely walk away or change the subject when those around you use inappropriate language.

Speak kindly and positively about others. Choose not to insult others or put them down, even in joking. Avoid gossip of any kind, and avoid speaking in anger. When you are tempted to say harsh or hurtful things, leave them unsaid.

...

Do not use profane, vulgar, or crude language or gestures, and do not tell jokes or stories about immoral actions. These are offensive to God and to others.

Remember that these standards for your use of language apply to all forms of communication, including texting on a cell phone or communicating on the Internet.

If you have developed the habit of using language that is not in keeping with these standards—such as swearing, mocking, gossiping, or speaking in anger to others—you can change. Pray for help. Ask your family and friends to support you in your desire to use good language.

I think a young man - or an adult man - or pretty much anyone - who follows this counsel would have little risk of "crossing the line of harassment" or "feel{ing} their behavior is harmless when it is not."

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

That doesnt' mean the man who might be accused in such a situation is lying about it.  The problem is he simply didn't see it as harmful when others and a victim did. 

Is the "victim's" position on the situation the definitive say-so on the matter?  Why?

Don't you think there is a problem with labeling a woman as a "victim" in this context?  Doesn't that beg the question?

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Who knows this might be the case here. 

Who, indeed.  Have any of us received sufficient evidence to arrive at an impartial, informed, fair-minded assessment of the charges against Mr. Dehlin?

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I haven't been able to follow some discussion from kate Kelly's facebook because I don't have facebook, but from what I've seen (I had a glimpse of it the first day) I don't see anything specific about what John did to anyone.  It's hard to feel convinced when allegations are less specific in a "he talks poorly to women" kind of way. 

That's sort of my feeling as well.  At present, anyway.  

Let's take one facet of this issue.  There has been an allegation that John Dehlin has spoken inappropriately about women's bodies (see here).  But this claim apparently comes from an anonymous source (a "respondent") who claims she "personally know{s} of at least a dozen women that went to John privately to bring up problematic things that were said or done by him while he was acting as OSF ED towards women in the community. Some were simple (don’t comment on someone else’s body/breasts/dress PERIOD) ."

Rather serious accusations, these.  But what is here, really?  What evidence?  Does this anonymous person "personally" know these dozen women?  Or does she just know "of" them (a rather important semantic difference, I think)?

Who is this person?  How did she come by her information?  Why should we believe her claims?  

Have any of these dozen women come forward and provided specific details into the allegations against Mr. Dehlin?  

How does this person know they went to Mr. Dehlin "privately"?  Was she present?  

Are we seriously going to pass judgment on the character of John Dehlin based on nested hearsay (an anonymous online respondent saying what "a dozen women" say they said to John Dehlin, and also what they say about John Dehlin's response)?

Um, no.  Not me.  I find stuff like this very problematic.  It is vague.  It is puffed up and bolstered ("at least a dozen women").  Hearsay within hearsay (particularly when compounded with utter and complete anonymity) is profoundly weak evidence.

I am no fan of John Dehlin.  I dislike much of what he has said and done.  But my assessment of the man is based on . . . what he himself has said and what he himself has done, and  not based on anonymously-sourced multiple hearsay allegations.

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

With that said, if he has treated women poorly and has harassed many as they worked with him through OSF, well, that'd be terrible.  He'd get no pass from me. 

Same here.  But these are serious charges.  I am not persuaded that we have been presented with competent evidence of such things.  

I am open to correction, tho.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

7 hours ago, juliann said:

Call me surprised https://medium.com/@ryanmcknight_61338/the-rift-that-could-tear-apart-the-post-mormon-community-7c9c26bba3ec

Hmm.  Not that impressed.  Let's take a look:

Quote

In November 2016 Kate Kelly, a Utah based attorney and activists (who also happens to have been excommunicated from the Mormon Church for publically advocating for gender equality for the faith she grew up in and dedicated more than 30 years of her life to), made a public post on Facebook calling out fellow excommunicant John Dehlin for allegedly mistreating one of the female podcasters that was working at the time for Open Stories Foundation (OSF)...

I have very little faith in Kate Kelly.  I find her manifestly unreliable as a source of information about controversial issues.  

Quote

The biggest single expense of the organization is the compensation received by its founder, John Dehlin, who saw his pay for services go from 37k in 2011 to 91k in 2015. Little is known about how compensation is determined for Dehlin or the other podcasters outside of public statements made by Dehlin himself. He says that there is a Board of Directors (of which he is a part of) who determines how all contractors are paid and that the amount of money is tied to the number of downloads a particular podcast gets.

I think there have been some legitimate points of concern aired about OSF's finances.  But I'm not sure we've seen anything illegal or intrinsically unethical.

Quote

Back to the Kate Kelly Facebook post from November of 2016. Kelly made the claim that not only had Dr. Kristy Money, a licensed psychologist, not been compensated for her work on the Mormon Transitions Podcast (part of the OSF family) but that her lack of compensation was due to discriminatory actions on the part of John Dehlin, up to and including gender discrimination. The post and the ensuing comments were so full of hyperbolic rhetoric and salacious accusations that any legitimate points brought up by the original complaint began to get lost in the shuffle.

Again, I place very little faith in Kate Kelly.  Not credible.  Not trustworthy.  Reflexively confrontational.  And the allegations are, again, vague and untestable and uncorroborated.

Quote

One interesting thing that came to light during this squabble in November was how John Dehlin faces his detractors. The general consensus is that he simply blocks and ignores those that don’t toe the line.

Meh.

Quote

Cue May 20, 2017. Kristy Money makes a public post on her Facebook page responding to what she says are lots of people asking her what happened with her departure from OSF. In her post she lays bare several claims of injustices that she witnessed while working for OSF. One of those claims was, of course, an unfair compensation plan for the podcasters. But it was some of the other claims that really caught people’s attention. While acknowledging that OSF has been a force for good in many people’s lives, she made the claim that Dehlin and OSF are not being fully transparent about their finances, specifically about John’s compensation. The accusations are not specific, but that is a component of the complaint, that there is no transparency as to where excess funds are going and what all of the fringe benefits there are for Dehlin.

I think the better statement would be "insufficient" transparency.  That's a subjective thing.  I'm not about to jump on an anti-Dehlin bandwagon based on such vague accusations.

Quote

The most sensitive issue out there is the one dealing with a former female employee of OSF who filed some sort of complaint against you or OSF or both. Rumors seems to indicate that some sort of settlement was reached. Now, there are rumors surrounding this woman and what the nature of her complaint was, but I really don’t care. Where I think there has been a disservice is in an apparent cover-up of the situation. Was there a complaint? Was there a settlement? How was that settlement paid? Would a tithe payer not legitimately ask the same question of the Mormon Church?

Again, lots of vagueness. "Rumors" and whatnot.

Mr. Dehlin, however, as courted this particular whirlwind.

So we learned . . . pretty much nothing at all as to cold, hard facts about Mr. Dehlin.

-Smac

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Honestly, it is situations like this that show the true measure of some people.  As Ryan points out (and many others have), there are aspects of this that touch on many criticisms people have of the Church itself.  Obviously, the Church presents itself as something entirely different in nature than the OSF, but the principles still hold true regardless of claims of divine origin and guidance.

One could even suggest that they metaphorically dug a pit for their neighbor and then fell into it.  

[smac97]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

Some of the value might be that by giving the woman the benefit of the doubt (instead of the man), it makes it easier for the truth to come out.  

What i mean is, women typically have less social power than men do.  That's pretty much a given based on research.  So, all women, in disagreements with men, start out behind in some ways.  Basically, it's not a fair fight from the beginning and some 'affirmative action' can have value by helping to even the playing field, if nothing else.

I have a hard time with this.  The way to create equality between the sexes is . . . to treat the sexes unequally?  In an adversarial construct, I can't see this ending well.  If it was wrong 100 years ago for the opinions of men to be privileged because of the gender of the opinion-giver, then I don't see how it can now be totally find to privilege the opinions of women based solely on their gender.

Speaking of "affirmative action," I am reminded of this pithy summation by Chief Justice Roberts in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007): "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

Similarly, I submit that the way to stop discrimination on the basis of gender is to stop discriminating on the basis of gender.

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

That doesn't mean that women should always be believed after evidence has been put forth and information has been presented-it doesn't mean that we should take a 'the woman is always right' point of view.  

Then what does it mean?  You are calling for gender-based "affirmative action" in which a male's viewpoint will be discounted and subordinated to a woman's solely because he is a man and the woman is a woman.

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

From my perspective it's more of a "because it is very easy for you to be bullied/ignored/discriminated against, i'm going to assume you are telling the truth while i'm looking into this deeper."

Isn't it also possible for men to be discriminated against?  For them to be injured by baseless/unsubstantiated accusations against their character?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

One could even suggest that they metaphorically dug a pit for their neighbor and then fell into it.  

If you have the fortitude to read through the comments on Tyler Glenn's contribution to this issue on Facebook, it's a bit like watching a doco where the animals eat their own young...

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I have a hard time with this.  The way to create equality between the sexes is . . . to treat the sexes unequally?  In an adversarial construct, I can't see this ending well.  If it was wrong 100 years ago for the opinions of men to be privileged because of the gender of the opinion-giver, then I don't see how it can now be totally find to privilege the opinions of women based solely on their gender.

Speaking of "affirmative action," I am reminded of this pithy summation by Chief Justice Roberts in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007): "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

They aren't talking about legally elevating the testimony of women. The reality is that we have biases in our perceptions. For many (most?) of us those include gender perceptions. I try to consciously fight some of my own biases by trying to listen more intently to those I might be inclined to dismiss. I try to be more skeptical with political writers I agree with and more open to those I disagree with. I have found that I, for example, trust male doctors more then female doctors. Not sure why. I have to fight that bias.

Pretending we do not have biases is what perpetuates them.

"The unexamined life is not worth living."

If we want to be exalted we should be at the forefront of rooting out our defects instead of whining about how it is hard.

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Isn't it also possible for men to be discriminated against?  For them to be injured by baseless/unsubstantiated accusations against their character?

Yes, men are the ones truly facing large-scale discrimination. We are the truly oppressed of society.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They aren't talking about legally elevating the testimony of women.

Nor was I.  We're not in a courtroom, after all.

Here's the comment to which I was responding: "So, all women, in disagreements with men, start out behind in some ways.  Basically, it's not a fair fight from the beginning and some 'affirmative action' can have value by helping to even the playing field, if nothing else."

That sounds an awful lot like "elevating the testimony of women" over that of men (during discussions between men and women) based solely on the woman being a woman and the man being a man.

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The reality is that we have biases in our perceptions. For many (most?) of us those include gender perceptions. I try to consciously fight some of my own biases by trying to listen more intently to those I might be inclined to dismiss. I try to be more skeptical with political writers I agree with and more open to those I disagree with. I have found that I, for example, trust male doctors more then female doctors. Not sure why. I have to fight that bias.

Pretending we do not have biases is what perpetuates them.

"The unexamined life is not worth living."

If we want to be exalted we should be at the forefront of rooting out our defects instead of whining about how it is hard.

Yes, men are the ones truly facing large-scale discrimination. We are the truly oppressed of society.

That you sneer at the notion of anti-male discrimination is . . . revealing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nor was I.  We're not in a courtroom, after all.

Here's the comment to which I was responding: "So, all women, in disagreements with men, start out behind in some ways.  Basically, it's not a fair fight from the beginning and some 'affirmative action' can have value by helping to even the playing field, if nothing else."

That sounds an awful lot like "elevating the testimony of women" over that of men (during discussions between men and women) based solely on the woman being a woman and the man being a man.

No, it sounds like making allowances for our own internal biases.

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That you sneer at the notion of anti-male discrimination is . . . revealing.

I don't sneer at it. It exists. I sneer at the idea that it is prevalent or a major impediment to most of the male gender. This is why women want discussion areas online where men are not welcome. Any time gender bias comes up guys tend to barge in like a bull in a china shop and talk about how oppressed they are and how anti-male discrimination is equally damaging. It is not. It exists and should be dealt with as best we can but the guys who bring it up tend to do so in a spirit of equality as if both genders suffer equally. They do not.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I have found that I, for example, trust male doctors more then female doctors. Not sure why.

I have the exact opposite bias. Give me a female doctor any day. Please. Brigham Young was right in what he said about women being ideally suited for the medical profession. (Yep, that's biased!)

[Stargazer]

22 hours ago, Valentinus said:

Nevermind

OK, but I read your posts before you neverminded them, and I was rather taken aback at the vehemence.  You're not normally that negative, so I'm wondering if you're having a particularly hard time of things right now?  If so, I hope things will get better soon!  

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

.  But this claim apparently comes from an anonymous source (a "respondent")...

Rather serious accusations, these.  But what is here, really?  What evidence?  Does this anonymous person "personally" know these dozen women?.... 

Are we seriously going to pass judgment on the character of John Dehlin based on nested hearsay (an anonymous online respondent saying what "a dozen women" say they said to John Dehlin, and also what they say about John Dehlin's response)?

It is unfortunate that you did not read with a bit more attention as I think there would have been more caution in your criticism above.  Here is what the author you are apparently using as the source of the controversy says shorty above his listing the allegations:

"I am not planning on including links at this point (or peoples names unless they are the principle actors) due to the number of people that haven’t made it really clear that they want to be famous, which I respect, but they are publicly accessible for those interested."

So were you just not interested in who she really was or just too eager to make a post about the credibility of anonymous posters or something else?

Her name is also on the first or second page of this thread (why I prefer shorter threads) listed in part (I too am reluctant to kick someone into the deep end without warning, but decided to post enough it would be easier to find in some cases and the full name in one case when I saw she had chosen to make multiple allegations and comments).

Can't remember if you said you read through the whole thing or not, but seems like you should at least read to get to the main point of the thread...My seventh post which starts with not only the full quote, but has a partial name...and my own explanation for an incomplete name...of course if that bothered you, all you had to do was go to link link provided above and click to not only find her name, but read the original comments rather than relying on secondhand reports...which you seem to disapprove of.

"Joanna S (she gave her name but is not a major player, so not posting it fully here) 

"This situation has been exactly one year in the making. It is LONG overdue. I personally know of at least a dozen women that went to John privately to bring up problematic things that were said or done by him while he was acting as OSF ED towards women in the community. Some were simple (don't comment on someone else's body/breasts/dress PERIOD) some were painful (please don't interrupt or dismiss or play 'devils advocate' to women's sexual/physical abuse experiences) and some were full fledged profiting and taking advantage of women (please pay your women podcasters EQUALLY, as you have your male podcaster for years) --- ALL OF THESE WOMEN went to John and close friends first. ALL OF THESE WOMEN hoped that John would learn and apologize and grow because everyone understands that coming from a patriarchal culture takes time to untangle... I personally sat with him and told him that it could be an easy fix if he's willing to apologize and actually start treating women better by certain actions. He responded by asking for loyalty-- it was completely inappropriate and I STILL gave him the benefit of the doubt and hoped he would LEARN."

her last name is Smith iirc, her name links to her profile...there is nothing anonymous about her.  She gives a number of details on her profile.

https://www.facebook.com/joanna.wallace.1297?fref=ufi

----

seems inappropriate to criticize someone without doing the minimal effort to find out if the accusation is true by getting as close as you can to the original source, especially when your criticism is it is inappropriate to rely on hearsay, etc.

[Damien the Leper]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

OK, but I read your posts before you neverminded them, and I was rather taken aback at the vehemence.  You're not normally that negative, so I'm wondering if you're having a particularly hard time of things right now?  If so, I hope things will get better soon!  

Things have been difficult and I thought it best to remove my issues.

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have a hard time with this.  The way to create equality between the sexes is . . . to treat the sexes unequally?  In an adversarial construct, I can't see this ending well.  If it was wrong 100 years ago for the opinions of men to be privileged because of the gender of the opinion-giver, then I don't see how it can now be totally find to privilege the opinions of women based solely on their gender.

Speaking of "affirmative action," I am reminded of this pithy summation by Chief Justice Roberts in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007): "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

Similarly, I submit that the way to stop discrimination on the basis of gender is to stop discriminating on the basis of gender.

Then what does it mean?  You are calling for gender-based "affirmative action" in which a male's viewpoint will be discounted and subordinated to a woman's solely because he is a man and the woman is a woman.

Isn't it also possible for men to be discriminated against?  For them to be injured by baseless/unsubstantiated accusations against their character?

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm just going to repost HappyJackWagon's response to my post because it shows perfect understanding of what I was saying and why its an important way to respond.

Quote

So essentially by trusting the woman from the outset, the environment is created wherein women feel safe to share other concerns instead of feeling like they will be attacked. I get that. It seems very similar to the idea of accepting the claims of an abuse survivor. Hear the complain. Accept it. Then investigate it to condemn the perpetrator. I don't have a problem with that system so long as the initial belief can be scrutinized for accuracy.

 

[stemelbow]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

I can't say the same.  Far too broad a stroke of that particular brush.

Do I know this woman?  Do I have experience with her?  Do I have an accurate measure of her credibility and character and trustworthiness?

Do I know the accused?  Do I have experience with him?

What are the circumstances and context under which "a woman came to me and told me she was being sexual{ly} harassed?"  Am I an attorney?  A police officer?  A prosecutor?  A judge?  A therapist?  A friend?  A reporter?  A politician?  An ecclesiastical leader?

There seem to be a lot of variables that could make a knee-jerk assumption like that . . . problematic.

What about the accused?  Is it appropriate to make an assumption based on an uncorroborated allegation which, by its terms, indicts his character and attacks his reputation?

Why extend to a woman the benefit of the doubt (that she is speaking the unvarnished truth about having been sexually harassed by Mr. X) but not to a man (Mr. X)?  Is that assumption based on the accuser's gender?  On the accused's gender?  On both?  Is such a gender-based assumption appropriate?

I'm not sure there is a "line of harassment."  Rather, I think it's a rather gray, foggy area, the boundaries of which are difficult to discern and not fixed with anything close to precision or clarity.

FWIW, I think the Church's teachings about communications are excellent, in that they encourage the Saints to stay out of this gray, foggy area.  Consider this excerpt from For the Strength of Youth:

I think a young man - or an adult man - or pretty much anyone - who follows this counsel would have little risk of "crossing the line of harassment" or "feel{ing} their behavior is harmless when it is not."

Is the "victim's" position on the situation the definitive say-so on the matter?  Why?

Don't you think there is a problem with labeling a woman as a "victim" in this context?  Doesn't that beg the question?

Who, indeed.  Have any of us received sufficient evidence to arrive at an impartial, informed, fair-minded assessment of the charges against Mr. Dehlin?

That's sort of my feeling as well.  At present, anyway.  

Let's take one facet of this issue.  There has been an allegation that John Dehlin has spoken inappropriately about women's bodies (see here).  But this claim apparently comes from an anonymous source (a "respondent") who claims she "personally know{s} of at least a dozen women that went to John privately to bring up problematic things that were said or done by him while he was acting as OSF ED towards women in the community. Some were simple (don’t comment on someone else’s body/breasts/dress PERIOD) ."

Rather serious accusations, these.  But what is here, really?  What evidence?  Does this anonymous person "personally" know these dozen women?  Or does she just know "of" them (a rather important semantic difference, I think)?

Who is this person?  How did she come by her information?  Why should we believe her claims?  

Have any of these dozen women come forward and provided specific details into the allegations against Mr. Dehlin?  

How does this person know they went to Mr. Dehlin "privately"?  Was she present?  

Are we seriously going to pass judgment on the character of John Dehlin based on nested hearsay (an anonymous online respondent saying what "a dozen women" say they said to John Dehlin, and also what they say about John Dehlin's response)?

Um, no.  Not me.  I find stuff like this very problematic.  It is vague.  It is puffed up and bolstered ("at least a dozen women").  Hearsay within hearsay (particularly when compounded with utter and complete anonymity) is profoundly weak evidence.

I am no fan of John Dehlin.  I dislike much of what he has said and done.  But my assessment of the man is based on . . . what he himself has said and what he himself has done, and  not based on anonymously-sourced multiple hearsay allegations.

Same here.  But these are serious charges.  I am not persuaded that we have been presented with competent evidence of such things.  

I am open to correction, tho.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't have trouble with your response, Smac.  I think I mostly agree.  When I said "It'd be my assumption, I think, unless I had some reason to doubt." I tried to express that there are reasons to doubt or question.  But, all things considered, if a woman who was decent and nice and all that, came to me and said she was harassed by someone else, like in an office setting, I'd have no reason to doubt her.  I would not respond with, "yeah right, toots.  You're up in the night.  That doesn't happen around here."  I'd think I'd respond with compassion and with the assumption she is telling the truth. 

I think I am probably giving more credence to the admittedly vague stories and weakly stated allegations than you are, at this time.  Not because of any reason other than I feel obliged to treat those who feel mistreated with an extra dose of compassion and assumption they are telling the truth. 

[stemelbow]

Hey all, still no podcast response from John?  Anyone see it or listen?  I thought it was due out a couple of days ago. 

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Hey all, still no podcast response from John?  Anyone see it or listen?  I thought it was due out a couple of days ago. 

I haven't seen it either. The original FB post said they would be "recording" the next day so I assumed it would be a live-cast like many of the others. It may be more of an actual recording and editing process. If that's the case, podcasts usually turn around within a few days. If there's nothing by the end of the weekend I'll start getting a bit perplexed. Time is of the essence so I'm a little surprised we're still waiting at this point.

[stemelbow]

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I haven't seen it either. The original FB post said they would be "recording" the next day so I assumed it would be a live-cast like many of the others. It may be more of an actual recording and editing process. If that's the case, podcasts usually turn around within a few days. If there's nothing by the end of the weekend I'll start getting a bit perplexed. Time is of the essence so I'm a little surprised we're still waiting at this point.

I see.  It wasn't that it was due out, it's that he was going to record it a couple of days ago.  That makes sense. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I see.  It wasn't that it was due out, it's that he was going to record it a couple of days ago.  That makes sense. 

They actually tried to broadcast something live from JD's facebook page. I think that was the original intent. They appeared to be having some difficulty with it and stop broadcasting. Last I checked there was still 18 minutes of "live" video of them trying to set up on his page.

[blueglass]

On 5/22/2017 at 4:11 PM, Calm said:

If anyone had complained that JD was being paid or the amount he got, you might have a point.

Kristy money said a number of people have submitted invoices to OSF and were not paid, and that it can take many months, and many reminders.  If no one is getting paid during the dry spells, then it's tough but they all suffer together, if the priority goes to paying JD's salary and expenses on-time every time, while creators are waiting months for payment that's a big problem. I think this discussion is useful, because we can see how donors can find ways to syndicate and flex more influence on how the board of directors compensates content creators.  If I'm not satisfied with the ministerial services received from my local area authority seventy - what do I do?  Vote opposed at stake conference?  Write a letter to him?  Write to the Priesthood Exec and Family Council? Where can I "rate my GA" ? and how does this become a consideration on annual salary reviews?

[stemelbow]

http://www.mormonstories.org/osf-celebrates-and-reviews-2016/

I guess here's John's response.

He said a couple of times they know they weren't able to get to everyone's questions, but, says he, they tried.  I don't fault him for making this focused on what his supporters want to hear.  There's no effort to address the challenging issues that have been raised (like his treatment of women or how women have been paid for the same amount of effort--Dan W making 6 times what Parker made 2 years ago).  I didn't know any questions were answered.  But, to be fair, I'm not sure Kristy Money gave much to respond to.  He mentions Kristy Money towards the end and adds some context to what had happened with her. 

I listened to the whole thing just because I said a lot here about this whole episode and figure I ought to do my best.  It's pretty tough.  Not much there, but I kind of get that because Kristy's original post of criticism was really weak. 

So...whatever. 

Edited May 26, 2017 by stemelbow

[Stargazer]

21 hours ago, Valentinus said:

Things have been difficult and I thought it best to remove my issues.

Yeah, probably for the best.  I don't know how many times I have started to add comments here and then thought better of it and cancelled them.  

 

[smac97]

On 5/25/2017 at 10:29 PM, The Nehor said:

No, it sounds like making allowances for our own internal biases.

I don't sneer at it.

Of course you do.  You responded to to a reasonable and eminently true observation (not even that, they were questions ("Isn't it also possible for men to be discriminated against?  For them to be injured by baseless/unsubstantiated accusations against their character?")) with a snotty and eminently condescending "Yes, men are the ones truly facing large-scale discrimination. We are the truly oppressed of society."

Yep.  Sneering.

Quote

It exists.

But it merits no discussion or analysis or consideration on your part.  Just contempt and sneering.

As I said, revealing.

If someone like me came along and was similarly contemptuous of the phenomenon of gender-based discrimination against women, you would throw a hissy fit to beat the band.  But when attempting to address gender-based discrimination against men . . . meh.

Quote

I sneer at the idea that it is prevalent or a major impediment to most of the male gender.

We know you sneer.  We all saw it.  We get it.

Nevertheless, that's worth a discussion, I think.  Men as a category have fallen, or are falling, behind women in many, many ways.  Consider this March 2017 article from the New York Times.  Or this one from The Atlantic in 2010.  Or this one from 2008.  Or this one from 2016.  Or this one from 2015.  Or this one.

I think many of the things happening to men may be causally linked to discrimination against men.  

And your response to the mere thought of these issues as being significant is sneering and dismissive contempt.

As I said . . . revealing.

Quote

This is why women want discussion areas online where men are not welcome.

I am fine with women who want to have such gender-based restrictions.  I get it.  Sometimes women want to talk to other women.

I would like to think, however, that we could also grant the same dispensation to men.  Do we?

Quote

Any time gender bias comes up guys tend to barge in like a bull in a china shop and talk about how oppressed they are and how anti-male discrimination is equally damaging. It is not. It exists and should be dealt with as best we can but the guys who bring it up tend to do so in a spirit of equality as if both genders suffer equally. They do not.

I am not persuaded that there is a contest here.  Gender-based invidious discrimination is bad.  That is my point.  It's bad when it happens to women, and it's also bad when it happens to men.

Your posture, however, reeks of generalized indifference toward and sneering contempt about gender-based discrimination as to men.  I find that problematic.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 27, 2017 by smac97