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

[smac97]

On 5/26/2017 at 1:57 AM, Calm said:

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?

Yes, I am interested in finding out who she is.  No, I am not so interested as to spend significant time hunting around for her identity.  

Quote

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...

I came to the thread late.  There are 16 pages.  400 posts.

One the first page alone you have eight fairly substantial posts.

And when I started reading this thread, I was reading it on my smart phone.

Quote

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.

There you go.  The relevant information was not included until your . . . seventh post?

I get it.  I should read more carefully.  But perhaps you can make allowances for people missing information nestled into the seventh post of a particular participant in a 400-post thread.

Quote

"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

But this doesn't really address the substance of my criticism.  So we (possibly) know her name ("her last name is Smith iirc" doesn't exactly pin her identity down with precision).  That's helpful, but not very.  We still don't know much about her.  She does not appear to be a public figure (having a FB page doth not a public figure make).  Her remarks seem to depend entirely on her personal credibility, which is apparently above scrutiny solely because she is a woman.

Here's the thing: If a person I do not know makes serious, but unsubstantiated, accusations against another person, I am generally going to reserve judgment on the matter pending more evidence.  Ms. Smith does not provide any.  She makes accusations against Mr. Dehlin (for whom, I again note, I have no particular fondness) that are broad, vague, and devoid of meaningful detail that might be testable/quantifiable/falsifiable/verifiable.  Instead, she presumes to speak for "at least a dozen women," none of whom we know.  

This is classic hearsay.  Hearsay has some inherent weaknesses about it.  Who are these dozen women?  Have they come forward and identified themselves?  Have they presented their own explanations as to their interactions with Mr. Dehlin?  Have they provided substantive details which might strengthen their claims against Mr. Dehlin?

Or are we all just jumping on an anti-Dehlin bandwagon because someone named Joanna Smith posted something on Facebook, because she tells us she is speaking on behalf of "at least a dozen {unidentified/unnamed} women," and - perhaps most problematic of all - because Joanna Smith is a woman and John Dehlin is a man, such that the former should be trusted in her public accusations against the latter based solely on their respective genders?

I think . . . not.

Since when are women excused from reasonable expectations (such as providing substantiation for serious public accusations against another person) simply because they are women?

I should add here that if a man went on Facebook and make similarly serious-but-unsubstantiated accusations against a female public figure, I would take the same course of action.  Gender does not, should not, factor into the equation.  It is irrelevant to the issue of evidentiary analysis.

Quote

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.

Cam, I have tremendous respect for you.  But I think you are off-base here.  I am critiquing a serious public charge against John Dehlin (I'm thinking here of the "dozen women" charges).  One of the people making this charge, Joanna Smith, has posted some text on Facebook.  That's it.  She has referenced a "at least a dozen {unidentified/unnamed} women" and has made classically hearsay statements pertaining to them.  That's it.  There is no competent evidence.  No details.  We don't know the what, then when, the where, the how, regarding the public accusations against John Dehlin.  And yet in this thread there are people who are proposing that we uncritically and reflexively accept these very serious charges against him by Joanna Smith solely because Joanna Smith is female, and hence presumptively trustworthy.

To be frank, it seems even more inappropriate to make serious public accusations without substantiating them, to instead present pure hearsay on behalf of a conveniently anonymous/unidentified set of "a dozen women," to expect these public accusations to be uncritically accepted as truthful, and to base this uncritical acceptance on the accuser's status as a women and the accused's status as a man.

I'd love to get to "the original source."  But Joanna Smith is withholding that source.  And people in this thread are suggesting that we proceed on the assumption that John Dehlin is guilty and his accuser is telling the truth because Dehlin is a man and his accuser is a woman.

That seems inappropriate.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 27, 2017 by smac97

[Calm]

"But this doesn't really address the substance of my criticism.  So we (possibly) know her name ("her last name is Smith iirc" doesn't exactly pin her identity down with precision).  That's helpful, but not very.  We still don't know much about her.  She does not appear to be a public figure (having a FB page doth not a public figure make).  Her remarks seem to depend entirely on her personal credibility, which is apparently above scrutiny solely because she is a woman."

You didn't even click on my link provided to her profile,did you? "her name links to her profile...there is nothing anonymous about her.  She gives a number of details on her profile."

"Executive Director at Utah Women Unite

Board of Directors at Ordain Women"

And her name is right across the top of her FB page:  Joanna J Smith.

It troubles me you are willing to make judgments here without taking the least amount of effort, including reading substantive posts on the first page that are all providing the context of the discussion and using the links provided, yet you are willing to go elsewhere and read those lengthy posts, though not apparently that carefully, and provide lengthy and substantive posts of your own. 

Why should I consider your posts to be informative and informed if you do not make the effort to actually pay attention to important details? (Serious question)

----

My personal decision to take her accusations seriously (which does not mean for me to trust them to be accurate or to assume they are credible, but to give them serious attention and effort before I choose to dismiss them, before I choose to make a judgment) was not based at all on her being a woman, but her willingness to post from the very beginning these claims under her actual name in such a way that it created a risk for her given that it is known that people have been harassed and stalked through info posted on FB, plus the fact she is involved in two significant activist women's organizations, including one at least which over time had significant involvement with Dehlin and the OSF and thus would lead to her having a great deal of interaction with the women of OSF.  And given her own position in her own organization, it is credible that women would speak to her about inequal situations in their lives.

Edited May 28, 2017 by Calm

[smac97]

On 5/26/2017 at 8:41 AM, bluebell said:

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,

 

Okay.  So are we likewise going to trust men "from the outset?"

If a man makes a serious-but-unsubstantiated public accusation against another person, are we going to trust him?

It sounds like the answer is . . . no.  Women, based solely on their gender, get a particular deference and privilege to make unsubstantiated public charges against other people.  And everyone is supposed to reflexively and automatically accept and believe the veracity of these public charges based purely on the fact that the person making them is a woman.  In contrast, men get no such deference/privilege when they do such things.

Am I reading this right?  Presumptions of truthfulness based solely on the individual's gender?

Quote

the environment is created wherein women feel safe to share other concerns instead of feeling like they will be attacked.

So in a desire to make women feel more comfortable ("safe"), we excuse them and hold them to a lesser, easier standard than men.  Solely because they are women.

Women get to make serious-but-unsubstantiated public accusations against other people (particularly against men, apparently), and these accusations are presumptively trustworthy solely because the person speaking is female.  And men are not given the benefit of any similar gender-based presumption solely because of their gender.

Sorry, but I don't get how this is a healthy or sensible or rational thing.  It is pandering.  It is fabricating a privilege on the - dare I say it? - pernicious assumption that women are weak.  That they cannot endure the same sort of scrutiny of their remarks that is applied to remarks made by men.

I do not accept this.  As I remarked previously: "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."

Quote

I get that. It seems very similar to the idea of accepting the claims of an abuse survivor.

This begs the question.  Characterizing a person making an a wholly unsubstantiated claim of abuse as "an abuse survivor" begs the question.

What if the "claims" are false?  What if they are exaggerated?  

Quote

Hear the complain. Accept it. Then investigate it to condemn the perpetrator.

Again, this begs the question.  What if the "perpetrator" is innocent?  What if the abuse "claims" against him are false?  What if they are exaggerated?

Read your statement again: "Hear the complain{t}. Accept it. Then investigate it to condemn the perpetrator."  Why on earth "investigate" something that you have predetermined to be true?  What's the point of it?  In your view, the accusation alone establishes the accuser as "an abuse survivor" to be "believe{d}" and the accused as "the perpetrator" to be "condemn{ed}."  

You are begging the question.  And the question-begging is, it seems, explicitly based on the accuser being female and the accused being male.  Apparently we as a society are supposed to uncritically and axiomatically accept serious and unsubstantiated accusations by Person X against Person Y when Person X is a woman and Person Y is a man solely on the basis of their respective genders?

Nope.  Not gonna buy into that.

Quote

I don't have a problem with that system so long as the initial belief can be scrutinized for accuracy.

But during that scrutiny, Mr. Dehlin is going to be presumed guilty?  Solely because he is male and because his accuser{s} are female?

This sounds rather awful.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 27, 2017 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

"But this doesn't really address the substance of my criticism.  So we (possibly) know her name ("her last name is Smith iirc" doesn't exactly pin her identity down with precision).  That's helpful, but not very.  We still don't know much about her.  She does not appear to be a public figure (having a FB page doth not a public figure make).  Her remarks seem to depend entirely on her personal credibility, which is apparently above scrutiny solely because she is a woman."

You didn't even click on my link provided to her profile,did you? "her name links to her profile...there is nothing anonymous about her.  She gives a number of details on her profile."

"Executive Director at Utah Women Unite

Board of Directors at Ordain Women"

Okay.  Still not a public figure, IMO.  Still not a known quantity.

I am a lawyer living in Provo.  Does that make me presumptively trustworthy?  Does that give me the privilege of making serious-but-unsubstantiated public accusations against other people?  Is it reasonable for me to expect strangers to uncritically and reflexively accept such accusations?

Quote

And her name is right across the top of her FB page:  Joanna J Smith.

It troubles me you are willing to make judgments here without taking the least amount of effort, including reading substantive posts on the first page that are all providing the context of the discussion and using the links provided, yet you are willing to go elsewhere and read those lengthy posts, though not apparently that carefully, and provide lengthy and substantive posts of your own. 

Why should I consider your posts to be informative and informed if you do not make the effort to actually pay attention to important details? (Serious question)

What "judgments" are you talking about?  Judgment = "not willing to reflexively and uncritically accept unsubstantiated public charged made by Joanna Smith against John Dehlin?"

That's a "judgment?"  I think it's more appropriately characterized as withholding judgment.

You are faulting me for not judging John Dehlin guilty of the unsubstantiated accusations made against him by Joanna Smith (again, I thinking here of the "dozen women" charges).  That's  . . weird.

Has Joanna Smith substantiated her "dozen women" claims?  Who are these women?  When did these incidents occur?  Where?  Were there witnesses?  Have these witnesses come forward and publicly identified themselves and explained what they observed?

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT TO ADD:

Quote

My personal decision to take her accusations seriously

I have said nothing about not taking these accusations seriously.  To the contrary, I have been reading quite a bit about them.

Quote

(which does not mean for me to trust them to be accurate or to assume they are credible, but to give them serious attention and effort before I choose to dismiss them, before I choose to make a judgment)

Um, that is exactly what I am doing.

But in this thread I am being faulted for objecting to the notion that unsubstantiated public accusations by a woman should be uncritically and automatically accepted as true and accurate based solely on the accuser's status as a woman.  "Affirmative action" has been presented as an example of how women should be given preferential treatment, how their unsubstantiated claims should be presumptively accepted as true solely because the claimants are women.

Quote

was not based at all on her belong a woman, but her willingness for to post from the very beginning these claims under her actual name

Yes, I acknowledge that.  But apparently she has not been willing to present anything testable or quantifiable.  She makes broad, vague claims, but provides no details.  She references "a dozen women" to bolster her accusations against Mr. Dehlin, but she does not identify them, or provide any details about their experiences, or explain how she knows anything about those experiences, or why her hearsay statements on their behalf are credible.

Quote

in such a way that it created a risk for her given that it is known that people have been harassed and stalked through info posted on FB,

Yes, that is unfortunate.  I condemn such behavior by others (I will note here that according to this article, fully one third of "stalking" victims on FB are male, so it's not like this misconduct is purely a one-way street).  But that is irrelevant to the points I am making.

Quote

plus the fact she is involved in two significant activist women's organizations,

So what?  How does that create a privilege for her to make serious, public, unsubstantiated accusations against John Dehlin?

I am a lawyer.  My professional life is highly regulated by the Utah State Bar, and is otherwise scrutinized by judges, opposing attorneys, etc.  Does that mean that I get to make serious, public, unsubstantiated accusations against other people whenever I like?  And that my accusations should be presumptively accepted as true?  I don't think so.

Quote

including one at least which over time had significant involvement with Dehlin and the OSF and thus would lead to her having a great deal of interaction with the women of OSF.  

What women?  Who are these "dozen women?"  What were there experiences?  When?  Where?  What circumstances?  Were there witnesses?

Why should I uncritically accept hearsay statements from these dozen women presented publicly via a Facebook post by Joanna Smith?  How does her involvement in two significant activist women's organizations factor into that at all?

The answer for some, apparently, is "affirmative action."  Joanna Smith is a woman, so she is presumptively trustworthy.

I just have a hard time with that.

Quote

And given her own position in her own organization, it is credible that women would speak to her about inequal situations in their lives.

I suppose.  But there are still inherent problems with hearsay.

Again, I am withholding judgment on this issue, and pointing out problems with the "evidence" presented to date.  And you are characterizing this withholding of judgment as . . . me "mak{ing} a judgment" against Joanna Smith.  That just seems odd to me.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 27, 2017 by smac97

[Calm]

I am not anyway faulting you for not judging Dehlin "guilty".  I have not judged him guilty of sexist practices yet, why would I fault you for that?  I have suggested that more needs to be done to determine if the claims have value, such as watching podcasts and measuring if he treats female guests different than male, how long he allows each to speak, how often he interrupts.  Which you would know if you had taken the time to read the thread and paid attention rather than jumping to conclusions.

 I am judging your judgment her claim had little value as she was an anonymous person when she clearly was not.  I fault you for your refusal to go to original sources and your dependence of hearsay from secondary sources, including my own, as well as poor attention to those since you misunderstood after multiple readings nor could you care enough apparently to familiarize yourself with the actual context (since even finishing half the first page was too much to expect) before pontificating on what others were doing wrong.

At this point I see no more reason to engage with you since you are refusing to take the time to actually read to understand context and I have no desire to waste my time defending myself or others against your straw men or your drama.

Edited May 27, 2017 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

I thought this was a very informative podcast. I am quite impressed with the caliber of people they have as board members. (You can read about their professional qualifications here http://www.openstoriesfoundation.org/our-team/ ) The explanations about financials and board organization make great sense. I think Craig (board member and finance committee chair) did a good job of explaining the shortcomings of past and present operations while also describing ways the board is working to improve. I thought this was candid and seemed very honest as they accepted some fault in recognizing limitations to what they have done and what they are trying to grow out of.

They addressed a little bit of the Kristy Money financial stuff and I found their explanations to be very reasonable, yet it is still a she said/they said kind of situation. They didn't really get into the issues of sxual harassment at all though they noted it is a priority to add greater diversity on the Board of Directors. Right now, only the chair is female and the rest are white male.

I'm curious what others are thinking about this podcast. I was a bit skeptical going in to it but found myself impressed by the professionalism and aspirations for growth and improvement of the board.

[HappyJackWagon]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not anyway faulting you for not judging Dehlin "guilty".  I have not judged him guilty of sexist practices yet, why would I fault you for that?  I have suggested that more needs to be done to determine if the claims have value, such as watching podcasts and measuring if he treats female guests different than male, how long he allows each to speak, how often he interrupts.  Which you would know if you had taken the time to read the thread and paid attention rather than jumping to conclusions.

 I am judging your judgment her claim had little value as she was an anonymous person when she clearly was not.  I fault you for your refusal to go to original sources and your dependence of hearsay from secondary sources, including my own, as well as poor attention to those since you misunderstood after multiple readings nor could you care enough apparently to familiarize yourself with the actual context (since even finishing half the first page was too much to expect) before pontificating on what others were doing wrong.

At this point I see no more reason to engage with you since you are refusing to take the time to actually read to understand context and I have no desire to waste my time defending myself or others against your straw men or your drama.

Calm, when this whole thing started she was anonymous, wasn't she? I thought she put her name to it just a day or so ago but maybe I'm wrong. If she started out anonymous and later became identified, it seems like a very harsh judgment you are passing on someone for something as simple as not keeping up to date on every development. There are 17 pages on this thread and I know I've missed content and updates so I think it's reasonable to think others may have too.

[smac97]

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not anyway faulting you for not judging Dehlin "guilty".  

The only things I have done are A) reserved judgment against John Dehlin, B) critiqued the overall lack of competent evidence pertaining to the charges against him (as to the "dozen women" thing), and C) objected to the notion of nakedly gender-based "affirmative action" (that is, women are presumptively truth-tellers, whereas no similar presumption is given to men).

Quote

I have not judged him guilty of sexist practices yet, why would I fault you for that?  I have suggested that more needs to be done to determine if the claims have value, such as watching podcasts and measuring if he treats female guests different than male, how long he allows each to speak, how often he interrupts.  

Okay.  My remarks have been substantially more focused than that.  

Quote

Which you would know if you had taken the time to read the thread and paid attention rather than jumping to conclusions.

My first post in this thread was responsive to one made by HappyJackWagon.

My second was in response to Stemelbow.

My third was in response to Juliann.

Fourth: to Bluebell.

Fifth: Nehor.

At that point you came along and responded to one of my posts, which led us here.

I have not been interacting with or responding to your posts (other than in a very circuitous way).

This thread is 400+ posts long  16 pages.

And I haven't jumped to (too many) conclusions.  I stand corrected as to the identity of Joanna Smith.  She has a Facebook page and is on two boards of women's organizations.  That doesn't make her a public figure or a known quantity.  And it doesn't make her presumptively trustworthy.  And it doesn't bolster her still-unsubstantiated, still-vague-and-untestable, still-heavily-reliant-on-hearsay-from-"a-dozen-{unnamed-and-unknown}-women" Facebook post.

Quote

 I am judging your judgment her claim had little value as she was an anonymous person when she clearly was not.  

Point taken.  I stand corrected.

Meanwhile, her FB post is still manifestly problematic.  It's very vague.  It is bereft of testable details.  It is bolstered by references to hearsay about "a dozen women."

Quote

I fault you for your refusal to go to original sources and your dependence of hearsay from secondary sources,

I went to her FB post and read it there.  It still has the same problems, whether I read it there or in copied-and-pasted form here.  

As for "original sources," what are they?  A Facebook post which makes hearsay-based accusations about "a dozen women" who are not named, and which does not include any testable details or information, doesn't seem to be a very useful source at all.

Quote

including my own, as well as poor attention to those since you misunderstood after multiple readings nor could you care enough apparently to familiarize yourself with the actual context (since even finishing half the first page was too much to expect) before pontificating on what others were doing wrong.

Again, I stand corrected as to the issue of Joanna Smith being identified by name.  That is not, in my view, very much in terms of evidentiary analysis.  She is still presenting classically hearsay statements.  She is still presenting serious public accusations against Mr. Dehlin without substantiating them or providing meaningful, testable details.

Quote

At this point I see no more reason to engage with you since you are refusing to take the time to actually read to understand context and I have no desire to waste my time defending myself or others against your straw men or your drama.

As you like.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 27, 2017 by smac97

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Calm, when this whole thing started she was anonymous, wasn't she? I thought she put her name to it just a day or so ago but maybe I'm wrong. If she started out anonymous and later became identified, it seems like a very harsh judgment you are passing on someone for something as simple as not keeping up to date on every development. There are 17 pages on this thread and I know I've missed content and updates so I think it's reasonable to think others may have too.

No, she was not.  Her post was a Facebook post which had her full name you could click on to get her details.  Nothing has been changed.

I also provided a link from the very beginning to Money's Facebook page for anyone not willing to rely on hearsay to make judgments could have gone to see her comments themselves.  So anyone from the very beginning only had to go look.

I was reluctant to put up full names due to reports of harassments. I figured if that was going to happen, it should be off her own post at least.

I don't have a problem with people not wanting to make the effort.

The problem comes when they are willing to criticize something without doing due diligence...like finding out if their criticism has merit first rather that relying solely on hearsay and not that very well (the dearjohndehlin post he was extensively quoting made it clear she was not anonymous and it was his choice not to post her name, but Smac judged her post's value based on that author's behaviour rather than the woman's own).

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

The problem comes when they are willing to criticize something without doing due diligence...like finding out if their criticism has merit first rather that relying solely on hearsay and not that very well (the dearjohndehlin post he was extensively quoting made it clear she was not anonymous and it was his choice not to post her name, but Smac judged her post's value based on that author's behaviour rather than the woman's own).

To clarify: I critiqued her post's value principally by its content.  I erred in thinking she had posted her remarks anonymously.  I stand corrected on that point.  The balance of my remarks/observations, however, remain.

I'm not sure how it is "drama{tic}" to talk about such things.  But such is life when The Gender Wars are imported into the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 27, 2017 by smac97

[Calm]

But you were relying on someone else's report of her comments without checking them yourself.  This is what you are condemning others of doing in essence, taking someone else's word and making a judgment based on that without making an effort to investigate for themselves and withhold judgment until they do.

And you complained, imo, about the effort required to do so...why should you have to read halfway through the first page here before being able to post an extensive commentary about a relevant blog elsewhere?  So you apparently don't believe it is important to know context and original sources before making judgments about the value of what someone has to say...while condemning others for doing the same thing.

The drama is your adding such labels as "The Gender Wars".  It is silly.

Edited May 27, 2017 by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

But you were relying on someone else's report of her comments without checking them yourself.  

No, not really.  I read her comments verbatim.  I just happened to read them as they were copied and pasted.  They were still verbatim.

Again, I stand corrected on the point that she did not post her remarks anonymously.  That does not vitiate the bulk of my concerns.

Quote

This is what you are condemning others of doing in essence, taking someone else's word and making a judgment based on that without making an effort to investigate for themselves and withhold judgment until they do.

Critiquing?  Yep.  Criticizing?  Probably.  "Condemning?"  Nope.

Again, I have presented multiple points of critique, yet you continue to fixate on the one which I have repeatedly acknowledged as an error.  How many more times do I need to say "I stand corrected" before it sticks?

Quote

And you complained, imo, about the effort required to do so...why should you have to read halfway through the first page here before being able to post an extensive commentary about a relevant blog elsewhere?  

Again.  I stand corrected as to the identity of Joanna Smith.

Quote

So you apparently don't believe it is important to know context and original sources before making judgments about the value of what someone has to say...while condemning others for doing the same thing.

Tell you what: I'll tell you what I "believe."  No need for you to guess at it.  And for the record: Your guess is wrong.  Very much so.

My critique of the "value" of what Joanna Smith has said remains pretty much the same (the exception being the point about her presenting it anonymously - about which I stand corrected).  That "value" is based principally on the content of Joanna Smith's words.  Those words are . . . problematic.  They are heavy on serious public accusations against John Dehlin, and very, very light on verifiable/testable detail.  Her reliance on bolstering hearsay from a dozen unnamed/unknown women is also quite problematic. 

Quote

The drama is your adding such labels as "The Gender Wars".  It is silly.

How else to describe this thread, where we see two long-time staunch advocates of the LDS Church are arrayed against each other?  Why is that?  For pete's sake: I am defending an otherwise execrable anti-Mormon, John Dehlin (!!), against serious, public, and unsubstantiated accusations, and I am defending him from my fellow (and, apparently, predominantly female) Latter-day Saints.

I find John Dehlin repellant in oh so many ways.  But that assessment is based on what he has demonstrably said and done in terms of his active opposition to the LDS Church and his efforts to turn people against it.  

I have some concerns about how he handles the finances of OSF, though I am overall kinda indifferent as to that issue.  It appears that he is something of a hypocrite when it comes to "transparency," and he may be skirting with unethical practices and misuse of the 501(c) designation.  But I just don't care that much.

He has also been publicly accused of very serious misconduct in his treatment of women.  That is a bit more concerning to me.  However, I am also concerned with the apparent rush to judgment him being a male who has been accused of misconduct by a female, and because those accusations are apparently expected to be accepted prima facie as true and accurate solely because the accuser is female and the accused is male. 

Hence we have Smac, the staunch Mormon, being raked across the coals by other staunch (female?) Mormons for A) not reflexively accepting as true the vague and unsubstantiated accusations against a (male) anti-Mormon, and B) critiquing and expressing concern about the substantive defects in those accusations.

How is it that this strange state of affairs came to be?  Well, my guess is: The Gender Wars are being imported into the LDS Church.  

In any event, feel free to disregard my posts.  I remain concerned about the allegations against John Dehlin, and the unseemly rush to condemn him based on the unsubstantiated say-so of Joanna Smith.

These personal barbs are . . . unexpected coming from you.  Ah well.  Perhaps we can bury the hatchet later.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 27, 2017 by smac97

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  So are we likewise going to trust men "from the outset?"

If a man makes a serious-but-unsubstantiated public accusation against another person, are we going to trust him?

It sounds like the answer is . . . no.  Women, based solely on their gender, get a particular deference and privilege to make unsubstantiated public charges against other people.  And everyone is supposed to reflexively and automatically accept and believe the veracity of these public charges based purely on the fact that the person making them is a woman.  In contrast, men get no such deference/privilege when they do such things.

Am I reading this right?  Presumptions of truthfulness based solely on the individual's gender?

So in a desire to make women feel more comfortable ("safe"), we excuse them and hold them to a lesser, easier standard than men.  Solely because they are women.

Women get to make serious-but-unsubstantiated public accusations against other people (particularly against men, apparently), and these accusations are presumptively trustworthy solely because the person speaking is female.  And men are not given the benefit of any similar gender-based presumption solely because of their gender.

Sorry, but I don't get how this is a healthy or sensible or rational thing.  It is pandering.  It is fabricating a privilege on the - dare I say it? - pernicious assumption that women are weak.  That they cannot endure the same sort of scrutiny of their remarks that is applied to remarks made by men.

I do not accept this.  As I remarked previously: "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."

This begs the question.  Characterizing a person making an a wholly unsubstantiated claim of abuse as "an abuse survivor" begs the question.

What if the "claims" are false?  What if they are exaggerated?  

Again, this begs the question.  What if the "perpetrator" is innocent?  What if the abuse "claims" against him are false?  What if they are exaggerated?

Read your statement again: "Hear the complain{t}. Accept it. Then investigate it to condemn the perpetrator."  Why on earth "investigate" something that you have predetermined to be true?  What's the point of it?  In your view, the accusation alone establishes the accuser as "an abuse survivor" to be "believe{d}" and the accused as "the perpetrator" to be "condemn{ed}."  

You are begging the question.  And the question-begging is, it seems, explicitly based on the accuser being female and the accused being male.  Apparently we as a society are supposed to uncritically and axiomatically accept serious and unsubstantiated accusations by Person X against Person Y when Person X is a woman and Person Y is a man solely on the basis of their respective genders?

Nope.  Not gonna buy into that.

But during that scrutiny, Mr. Dehlin is going to be presumed guilty?  Solely because he is male and because his accuser{s} are female?

This sounds rather awful.

Thanks,

-Smac

I really don't care if you don't think it's fair, that's fine. You can continue to respond to accusations of abuse however you see fit.

I am very grateful for those men who do understand the precarious position women are often in in our culture and react in ways to make it easier for women to be treated fairly.

We need more men willing to see the issue from a different perspective than their own.  Kudos to them.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I really don't care if you don't think it's fair, that's fine. You can continue to respond to accusations of abuse however you see fit.

I am very grateful for those men who do understand the precarious position women are often in in our culture and react in ways to make it easier for women to be treated fairly.

We need more men willing to see the issue from a different perspective than their own.  Kudos to them.

It has been so encouraging. I sleep with Nehor's response under my pillow it is so inspiring. The edges of the computer aren't comfortable but, hey. Seriously, Nehor, you are my first responder hero.

Edited May 27, 2017 by juliann

[Calm]

"They were still verbatim."

And yet errors can be made, important context lost, and incomplete quotes can misrepresent original sources.

Edited May 27, 2017 by Calm

[The Nehor]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

I was sneering at you with your need to bring anti-male discrimination into a discussion it did not belong in while you accused me of sneering at discrimination against men. I completely agree I was sneering at your weird need to bring in this weird derail. Deservedly.

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

In the context of this thread it does not merit any discussion or analysis or consideration on anyone's part. Contempt and sneering is the appropriate response. Otherwise you end up rewarding bad behavior in bludgeoning in with irrelevant tangents about how men face discrimination too. Rewarding bad behavior encourages more of the same.

Now, if a group of men were discussing a case (much rarer but they exist) of discrimination against men and a woman came in and started explaining how women are also discriminated against would you react with complete decorum and understanding or challenge their statement and the relevance of them bringing this derail into the conversation?

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

Funny.....my comments pointing out you were bludgeoning around irrelevantly were greeted with numerous upvotes. At the time I am responding to your post it does not have any. I do not put much stock in ad populum argument but I do think you may want to reconsider the attempt to strengthen your position with the pronoun "we" in your first paragraph there. It might better be "I" as you appear to stand alone.

If you feel discrimination against men deserves discussion you should probably start a thread rather than hijacking this one. You can post all the articles you want there and invite discussion? Why do you want to bring it in here in a context where it is clear you are trying to equalize gender discrimination by suggesting it is equally prevalent towards both genders.

Indeed .........revealing. What exactly is it supposed to be revealing? That I am secretly a woman? That I am a traitor to my gender? That I am defending women I have never met in a desperate attempt for female attention? That I work for an equality organization and am paid by the word? That I am secretly campaigning for women to get the Priesthood so I can halve the size of my Home Teaching list? What exactly have you discovered? Do I need to flee the country?

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

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?

https://www.mgtow.com/forums/

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

The contest only showed up when you wandered into a discussion of discrimination against women and shared with us how discrimination against men is bad for some reason.....why? Is this part of that 'revealing' thing that you were talking about earlier? Are you secretly wanting to feel discriminated against for some reason? Do you feel left out? Why did you step into this? Do you also feel the need to tell the handicapped that men are also discriminated against?

Context is everything and the need to bring in a smaller issue (male discrimination) into a discussion of a larger and more prevalent issue (female discrimination) reeks of insecurity and that my friend is:

Edited May 28, 2017 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, juliann said:

It has been so encouraging. I sleep with Nehor's response under my pillow it is so inspiring. The edges of the computer aren't comfortable but, hey. Seriously, Nehor, you are my first responder hero.

Thanks.  

I appreciate your kind words.

[stemelbow]

On ‎5‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 8:16 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

I thought this was a very informative podcast. I am quite impressed with the caliber of people they have as board members. (You can read about their professional qualifications here http://www.openstoriesfoundation.org/our-team/ ) The explanations about financials and board organization make great sense. I think Craig (board member and finance committee chair) did a good job of explaining the shortcomings of past and present operations while also describing ways the board is working to improve. I thought this was candid and seemed very honest as they accepted some fault in recognizing limitations to what they have done and what they are trying to grow out of.

They addressed a little bit of the Kristy Money financial stuff and I found their explanations to be very reasonable, yet it is still a she said/they said kind of situation. They didn't really get into the issues of sxual harassment at all though they noted it is a priority to add greater diversity on the Board of Directors. Right now, only the chair is female and the rest are white male.

I'm curious what others are thinking about this podcast. I was a bit skeptical going in to it but found myself impressed by the professionalism and aspirations for growth and improvement of the board.

Even if the concern moneys from last year was the main concern I don't know how the podcast does a good job of answering. 

I haven't been following for the past week, since I last commented on this, so I'm not sure if someone has linked this:

http://rationalfaiths.com/john-dehlins-osf-finances-q-raised-qs/

More Q's than A's, says he.  My concerns were less about the financials, because I'm not a donor.  It'd have been nice if he addressed the troubling issues of sexism or mistreatment of women.  Maybe he doesn't see any credibility to it.  It'd be nice to know that's how he felt, at least. 

Other than that, I may be going on another week long avoidance of this topic.  We'll see.