I’m beginning to think that one of the big problems facing atheists is … incompetence. A representative from the Secular Policy Institute approached another organization and tried to convince them they ought to sign up with SPI. In the back and forth that followed after the organization expressed their lack of interest, the representative said a few things.
“I’m starting to believe that the reason the secular movement doesn’t have more women is the women. Prove me wrong.”
That tactic might have worked if, for instance, they were trying to recruit some MRA group, but they weren’t. They wanted the Feminist Freethinkers to join them.
Brilliant.
I think the reason the secular movement doesn’t have more women is thanks to men like that.
(Via Ophelia)
I think the reason the secular movement doesn’t have more women is thanks to men like that.
I thought it was because our pure logical intellects and snazzy fedoras were too sexy for them to handle?
I think you’ve done that all by yourself, cupcake.
It’s almost as if he believed he was issuing some kind of authoritative order. Maybe that’s why more women don’t join his cult of personality.
Looks like someone took a page out of Sam “critical posture is more intrinsic to men than women” Harris’ playbook, and turned the dial up a notch.
Dang that is double face-palm and headdesk ignorance. But then, they are probably from the MRA/liberturd end of atheism….They aren’t listening….
It’s hilarious how much that exchange resembles something you’d see on Nice Guys of Okcupid: “Hey sexy want to get together?” “No thanks” “Fuck you, you’re ugly anyway.”
Mentioned this at OBS’s place, but I can’t stop staring at the ad on SPI’s front page that says only:
Pro-tip: you’re supposed to hide the fact that you’re scamming for money.
Cursed Tpyos: OB’s, not OBS’s…
By the way, let us not forget that Edwina Rogers is CEO of SPI.
llewelly,
Yes, Edwina “I wrap my presents with actual money” Rogers. Indeed. As I said over at OB’s I’m still surprised by the level of unprofessionalism in the emails. I can’t imagine representing an organization and speaking that way to people I am supposed to be inviting to join.
You know, I usually just lurk on posts about gender issues (and many others), because I can’t possibly say anything which, say, Nerd of Redhead or Tony can’t say better, and in any case I think it’s kind of presumptuous for someone like me to say anything, but… arrgh, why are all the atheists who want to be In Charge Of A Movement such rotten human beings? And you can bet that if you contacted this nitwit’s colleagues/superiors, they would see nothing wrong with what he did. If he gets kicked out, it will be reluctantly and without any actual understanding why, purely a PR move.
(Incidentally, PZ, are you sure the group was the SPI? None of the linked sources specify — I was hoping to go and look them up and see if, as I sort of thought I remembered, this was a group which has done something else stupid in the last year or two, but I wanted to make sure that was the right identification, and I can’t find it elsewhere. Am I just missing it somewhere?)
@ The Vicar:
If you go to Ophelia Benson’s blog, she identifies the people involved in the comments.
As to the general question:
Authoritarian impulse, it seems. Rotten human beings always gravitate to/create the positions of unquestionable authority, don’t they?
For once, I’m not actually surprised. I was suspicious of this group at the outset and one look at their website only makes me more suspicious. The first thing I see is a list of “fellows” and their pictures. All white men, each of whose statements and behavior I have some serious problems with.
Any more it seems to me that Americans United and the ACLU are basically doing all the work in Washington I want done on issues associated with atheism.
http://s1337.photobucket.com/user/SWimages/media/sealion_zps8cb78cdd.jpg.html
Why are all the atheists who want to be In Charge Of A Movement such rotten human beings
Because power (even small power like being in charge of a herd of cats with deep ideological rifts) only has value if you abuse it; those that are attracted to power should always be suspect. Note that’s different from leadership, which is often conferred from without, whereas desire for power, wealth, dominance, etc, comes from within.
Augh, the stupid burns!
PZ – I think you may be mixing up organizations with identical initials. After following the link to Ophelia’s post, I believe it was the the Sexual Predator Institute that was understandably rebuffed by the Feminist Freethinkers.
@12, PatrickG
Ah, thank you. I did go there, as it happened, but since she was reporting on somebody else’s blog post, I assumed the comments would have no additional information and skipped them, more fool me.
It’s particularly ironic that the individual accused FFNY of “not really doing anything”, considering that the SPI’s own page reveals no past or current projects at all.
Entitlement. 9 out of 9 times it boils down to that. He thought he was entitled to their allyship, with him being a leader of great thinky think organisation and when she turned him down, there was clearly something wrong with her.
I think they should probably name the fuckwit who said this if they deem it safe for themselves. He doesn’t deserve the respect of people who don’t know he’s a flaming misogynist asshole.
Ophelia has already identified the person. According to her, it’s this guy, their “Alliance Director”.
There’s a secular movement?
Women! What do they want? Amirite?
How stupid do you have to be to be so incompetent that you can’t conduct yourself in a way that doesn’t alienate half the human population?
Not rhetorical…
Pretty fucking stupid.
There is but, on some days, you could be forgiven for being unable to distinguish it from an ordinary bowel movement.
Dude doesn’t seem to realize that Feminist Freethinkers are already part of the secular movement, even without joining his club.
Organization full of arrogant, sexist boors hires an arrogant, sexist boor to be their “Alliance Director”? You don’t say!
Is there anybody not part of the SPI that has any respect for the SPI?
Wow.
I am fascinated that a guy like this even bothered to contact a filthy feminist group to associate with in the first place.
Also, whining about The Infighting is interesting considering his simultaneous insulting the group with the following:
You are such slackers who don’t accomplish anything.
Also, you are so mean and battling with sexists all the time.
I fucking guarantee if the targets of the “infighting” were religious people instead of regressive atheists that this same person would count that as actually “doing something”. It only counts as nothing because the struggle is against people that he, on some level, agrees with.
Very apt, especially in this case.
Yet another piece of evidence that anarchy is the only way to go for “the Secular Movement.” There are just way too many people (and groups) out there who want to speak for me – and I want no part of it.
Oh, THAT Secular Policy Institute. The one with Dawkins, Harris and Shermer in it, which is now “led” by a longtime Republican who wants secularists to be more accommodating to Republican theocrats. That explains a lot.
“I’m starting to believe that the reason the secular movement doesn’t have more women is the women.”
Well, Yeah!! Given that the secular ‘movement’ is largely the same old religiously endorsed shit with the godly figurehead removed, most women would conclude there are few benefits to joining.
This guy Johnny Monsarrat seems to be the “alliance director” for SPI AND the Richard Dawkins Foundation (gotta love the patronizing tone built into that title). He’s also the founder of a gaming company that was bought out by Warner Bros. — wonder if he’s involved with #Gamergate.
My employer’s nanny-ware blocked access to his web-page.
I still can’t believe they actually went with the “think tank of thought leaders” description. Could make a decent tongue twister though.
Check out the photo on their Our Cause page:
Sure. If the backgrounds are all overexposed noon skies.
He’s also some sort of award-winning public speaker. I guess he should be careful how he “directs” his “allies,” otherwise he could end up living in a VAN down by the RIVER!
Yeah, the whole thing only makes sense if the believes women are some completely different kind of being… from… people.
This is what secularists look like. We come from all backgrounds, and we are just like other people.
Fifty shades of beige? Sorry, not my kind of rainbow.
Gamerghazi.
Much win. So internet. Wow.
Disclaimer: this is not sarcasm.
This guy is an alliance director. This is literally his only job. His only job, the one he gets paid for, is just to reach out to groups and talk them diplomatically in order to build a relationship with them on behalf of his employer. That is all that he does. And yet he manages to essentially have a tantrum about uppity wimmenz because a feminist group was a little reluctant to join, at least at this moment. What a fucking asset to the team.
I imagine they have hired Average Youtube Commenter as their publication writer, a 9 year old learning their times tables to be their accountant, and they gave Richard Dawkins full control over media relations. I honestly can’t imagine it being any other way.
According to a link in comments at B&W, Johnny Monsarrat has also referred to himself as a “dotcom era icon and Internet expert.”. Sounds like the humblest person in the room.
LyleX @19
But they are leading with their thoughts! Don’t you think all their thinky thinking and leadership thoughts are enough?
This is a reason why I am justified in looking at these deep rifts in military strategy terms. These atheists treat social organization the way that corporations often treat their organization. SPI tries to get Feminist Freethinkers to join, they say no and an aggressive dominance display follows.
I’m supposed to be polite? You don’t respond to a dominance display with politeness. I’m supposed ignore the culture? I refuse to ignore the similar behaviors out of other parts of that set of social connections. So many of the emotional responses out of that side that don’t get called “emotional” and “unacceptable” are pretty clear dominance displays.
If this Johnny Monsarrat thought that his behavior was normal and acceptable that suggests a culture that needs to be responded to in specific ways.
Hatchetfish posted this fascinating link in the comments on OB’s post, in case anyone didn’t see it there.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/02413623115/bogus-lawsuit-plus-threats-to-those-who-write-about-it-leads-to-epic-response.shtml
Turns out (shockingly!) that Monsarrat has a history of awfulness. He founded a company to “fight cyberbullying” and then used it to obtain personal information of of bloggers, journalists, and forum participants who were discussing details of his arrest, then sued them all for defamation. The suit was eventually dropped, but it’s worth reading the glorious letter from one of the key defendant’s attorney to Monssarrat’s.
He certainly doesn’t come out well in a basic search.
http://tech.mit.edu/V123/N20/20matchup.20n.html
porlob@41,
My favourite part of that was the way the defendant lawyer called Monsarrat’s attorney for collusion, for trying to apply a state law that was overridden by federal law in 1976, and how blatantly wrong and unfounded the claims were. Just crushing.
Very, very revealing of how horrible Monsarrat is, though. I’m looking for redeeming qualities, can’t find any yet.
Wow. The guy started a matchup service and once people gave their personal information, he then used it as his own personal dating service. What a grade-A creep.
Heres the contact page to complain about this “alliance director” (what an ironic title!)
http://secularpolicyinstitute.net/contact/
So what do we have here so far? An organization containing Harris, Dawkins, and Shermer, led by someone trying to reach out to the right-wing, with an alliance director who is anti-feminist and also happens to have hosted a party where minors got drunk, and also has used personal information to sexually harass women and threaten release of info obtained under the pretense of helping fight cyberbullying.
Welcome to Atheism.
Wow. They hired a guy who has a history of sexual harassment as their outreach “alliance” director when that issue was the fracture point of the current Deep Rifts? Not much thinkity think thinking going on there. It honestly sounds like a farce. No one would believe it if it weren’t true.
Of course they did. These are serious thought leaders with the average maturity of a toddler. “You say we can’t do something? WE’LL DO IT EVEN MORE AND THEN RUB YOUR NOSE IN IT!”
http://tech.mit.edu/V123/N20/20matchup.20n.html
Uh huh. He “contacted at least one woman after she repeatedly asked him to stop”, he wrote to one participant, “you’ve made me wait too long; I am getting impatient,” and to another he “started sending her charts of his weight loss, promising that he would lose more weight in the future … and begging her to meet up with him,” and to anyone who ignored his first email to them, “Forgive my persistence. And I know you’re busy. Life is short, and I just hate to lose a good opportunity. I don’t want to be rude, though, so … if you don’t reply I’ll have to give up on you.” But no charges were filed so it wasn’t harassment at all. Just those women being so problematic.
I see you failed to click on the Proposed link. Since you did, where you would have seen these two fabulous projects:
Proposed Project #1: Fundraising is a Free Market Solution, Too!
Notable comments include:
Proposed Project #2: We’d Like to Sell Ourselves, but Man, Atheists Suck!
I can’t even begin to pick out excerpts from this, it’s too funny (not ha-ha funny). You really should go read the whole whine, which basically boils down to “Angry Atheists Are Costing Us Money”. Here’s a taste:
If you thought that was offensive, get a load of this:
And how do they plan to get over their jealousy of the oh-so-lucrative gay rights movement?
Yep, their best idea for soaking corporations for cash is getting peons from local secular groups who can be hoodwinked into working for shit. Also, please note that the Fellows are far, far too busy to test this sales pitch themselves. They’ll need volunteers for that. To “reality check” their plan.
This is the professionalism and thought leadership that SPI provides. It’s to laugh.
Oh, that was directed at LykeX, #19, sorry.
Also, Ibis @ 49 and others: Dear gawds above, below, and sideways, did they not even run Monsarrat’s name through a search engine before hiring him?
This made me laugh. Seriously? Thank you, PatrickG, for putting that together for us.
@ yazikus: My pleasure. I do highly recommend reading the entirety of the second plan, which really is just an extended whine that if atheists would stop being so divisive (and we all know who they’re talking about, don’t we), we could get corporate sponsorships like Teh Gayz do.
Wow, the additional farce just quoted by PatrickG.
Like Ibis3 said, you couldn’t believe this unless it was true. The mind boggles.
Project #3: Obtain the Iron Throne For Richard Dawkins’ Personal Collection
This project is in the early stages, but we’re pretty sure brown nosers will take care of it for us. We’re looking at you, Nuge.
This sounds fun. So if we issue you some recommendations for reform, you’ll follow them, right? Then you can see if those reforms result in more diverse membership etc. Or if you choose not to follow the recommendations, is that the women’s fault too?
Speaking of PR and Richard Dawkins, here is Richard Dawkins make fun of liberals, and victims of sexism and racism. Because it is a day that ends in y.
And he is approvingly retweeting other jokesters mocking the idea of ableism in a similar fashion.
Including this one:
And the slightly ironic little cherry on top: While he mocks the sensitivity of those saying jazz hands is prefferrable to clapping because the noise of the latter might cause anxiety, with the insinuation that it is all such a ridiculous and trivial affair, Dawkins was previously spending his time ranting about the evils of…..dubbing over political speeches. Apparently something is so trivial as to be mocked if it is done in a manner displaying concern for the well being of others. When it is splitting hairs over something trivial in the Holy Name of Logick, though, and done so that he can simultaneously issue a patronizing scoff to people who can’t read subtitles or something, then no matter is too trivial for Brave Sir Dawkins, Champion of the Petty.
anteprepro @38:
I can’t wait to find out which groups he tries to forge an alliance with next. Imagine him contacting a group of black freethinkers…
…runs away screaming from that thought.
I’m starting to think the reason SPI hasn’t accomplished anything is all you pesky underlings are doing your own thinking. If we would just accept without questions what the brave thought leaders said and handed over our cash there wouldn’t be a problem. We’d just be a happy band of authoritarian followers. We wouldn’t have to think, just accept what they say, and they get to play in their stacks of gold coins a la Scrooge McDuck. This would really make everything much simpler. Geez, why can’t you people get on board? Bunch of splitters.
Trawling their site is such a good time-waster. From their Join page (bolding not mine, italics mine)
So they will quite literally accept allies who call for an end to church/state separation and rail against evidence-based decision making. As long as they’re cool with saying “nobody should be persecuted for their religious beliefs”. All three items are very important, and they’re not exactly non-overlapping.
In any case, I’m having a really difficult time finding any explicit religious groups on their list of
peonspartners. A bunch of Humanist groups, but the only church I can find is the Church of Bacon.So given all that, why exactly would I want to be part of this coalition, anyway? Oh! Here’s why!
I get VIP access and a SECRET MAILING LIST! With these I will control the movement! How do I sign up?!
Yep, they mention the SECRET MAILING LIST twice!
HAHA.
P.S. The idea of a secret mailing list for activity coordination is about as controlling and authoritarian as you can get. Just look at what happened with the FTB back channel! (/kidding)
Join now and there’s a 0.00000001% possibility that Sam Harris might nod approvingly in your general direction!
Be first to bid on unique items, like a croissant that Shermer half-ate at a conference!
Run up on stage at hug Richard Dawkins like they do at Morrissey concerts!
I’m not. They’re weasels. Being able to put an avowedly feminist group on their “alliance” list will let them shield themselves from criticism about their rampant misogyny. They don’t care about the target group, mind you–that’s obvious from this incident. They’re just not quite flush enough with manpower (gendered term deliberately selected) to make up their own astroturf fauxminist group.
Apparently, Mr. Monsarrat is (was?) also a “neighborhood therapist“, frighteningly enough.
No ego there, though.
PatrickG @50 – Wowza! (Thank you, by the way.) The part you quoted:
Even them! And they’re so beneath us!
Ah, well, there we are. SPI is a bunch of weasels who don’t care about the “secular” part, or really even the “policy” part, they just want to raise a bunch of money. And Dawkins is in it? The guy with a net worth over $100 million, who has a foundation named after him which asks people for donations so that the foundation can… um… well, they never name an actual goal, it’s just “fighting for secularism”? Well, gee, that’s such a shock I may never recover.
Is there a law, somewhere, which permits one to sue a group for defamation for falsely claiming representation? I think we could reasonably work up a class action suit against them on those grounds if there were.
Did you know that Monsarrat has no connection to RDF? https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/581590441495232514
In 2008 he was 39, according to Krasnaya Koshka’s link (#63). That means when he was matching himself up with and harassing Harvard & MIT students in 2003 (presumably including undergrads) he would have been 34. As if it wasn’t skeevy enough. Oh and when he was arrested for having a bunch of teens drinking at a party he was hosting in 2010 he was 41. Huh. Looks like Michael Shermer is keeping good company.
Dawkins, via changerofbits@65:
Interesting, because he certainly did at some point.
Those Secular VIP interviews end around June of 2014, I note; maybe there was a falling out around then.
What? Dawkins is trying to gaslight people about his associations when there’s an accusation of totally inappropriate behavior? Say it ain’t so!
@ hjhornbeck:
His last interview on behalf of RDF was of Jaclyn Glenn, June of 2014. So c’mon man, that was like, almost a year ago. Can’t believe you’re obsessing over something that happened that long ago. Haters gotta hate, I guess.
Also, Dawkins said Monsarrat has no connection. Present tense! You really need to learn how to think like a thought leader.
If not obvious, giant sarcasm tag, analogous to the flaming letters spelling out God’s Final Message to His Creation, attached to this comment.
I guess it depends on what meaning the word “has” has ;)
Is it just me, or did it sound like their is basically using PUA tactics (i.e. “negging”) to try to get that feminist group to join? The other stories of his misconduct (mentioned by anteprepro and Ibis3) makes me wonder if he really was a PUA slimeball.
Now that’s thinking like a Leader!
I just left my local group where I have put my energy and enthusiasm for the past 5 years over their decision to align with the SPI. And another woman walks away from the atheist community. But hey, it’s my fault right?
dianagoods
Their loss, our gain.
Welcome in.
Thanks, chigau. Long time lurker.
From the article about the lawsuit
I believe the correct translation is “legend in his own mind”
The lawsuit used the same commercial disparagement claims that the quack that is suing Steven Novella is using.
Patrick G
What, no secret decoder ring? I’m out.
The whole thing is beginning to smell like those Republican presidential candidate PAC scams where they raise money which gets spent almost entirely on “administration”. Either that or the SPI is some massive Rethuglican/theist false flag plot to make atheists look like they actually are the all immoral evil creeps the right wing Christians think we are. It is as if they used to Google to find the worst possible candidate who didn’t have an actual criminal record.
dianagoods:
Welcome in. Feel free to join us over in the Lounge for social chat.
@#76, militantagnostic
Six of one, half dozen of the other?
Disgusted though I am with Dawkins and the other “Thought Leader” types, I doubt they would knowingly go along with a Republican “let’s discredit the Atheists” plan. But I’m 99.99999999% certain (margin of error 0.00000001%) that Dawkins, Harris, et al, would sign on to any “atheist” organization provided they were assured that they held the highest of hifalutin’ thinky thought thinking positions, and that the organization would do its best to provide them with publicity. So to me, at least, it seems entirely plausible that the SPI is basically the creation of the same sort of swindlers who run the PAC scams, but more with an eye towards trying to fleece the nonreligious the way they fleece the religious. Monsarrat and his ilk aren’t the employees of Dawkins and his ilk, they are in effect the employers. I doubt they deliberately set out to make atheists look bad, that’s just a side effect that neither they nor the Big Names whose egos they stroke care about in the least.
Seems plausible. However, I’m shocked that Dawkins would tweet that Monsarrat has no affiliation with RDF, given that both RDF’s website and the SPI site list Monsarrat as being affiliated with RDF (or at least previously affiliated). That’s simply dishonest.
Beyond that, I’d argue that the SPI website itself is evidence of a grift operation. Far too shoddy and unprofessional.
WARNING: Far too web design detail follows. Partner and I are moving soon, and occasionally finding something new wrong with SPI.net has been a truly excellent way to procrastinate. :)
Fair warning: web pedantry lies ahead*.
It’s fairly clear that none of Dawkins and Co. have ever actually visited their own website in any meaningful way. Probably they’ve visited it once and said ‘hey, a website! looks neat!’. Ridiculous content aside (as documented in earlier comments), the webpage itself is full of shoddy design errors. Ran it through a standardized test suite and just wow, this site does not support a lot of recent browsers and versions. Some notable examples that came up in some browsers/versions:
* Main page banner fails to extend across the page (truncates 1/5 in one example). Gaping white space follows to the right.
* Subtitle on individual pages wraps the text into a no-overflow zone, causing truncation of text.
* The “Fellows” carousel on the main page is non-functional in some versions of IE***.
* The “Fellows” carousel on the main page in some browsers fails to render inline, causing vertically stacked pictures and pushing content way down the screen.
* Navigation bar dropdown menus don’t render.
Then there’s fun stuff like the fact that links to individual blog posts take you to the blog itself (mind you, these are front page links — try this, for instance), while rendering the title appropriately. Very confusing.
I tried to run a css conflict tester on the site, and it tried to throw itself out of a window. No doubt what’s causing cross-browser problems noted aboe.
Frankly, the entire thing screams “we can’t afford/choose not to pay a competent web designer”, which is hardly conducive to getting people to donate. The atheoskeptisphere (or whatever) is very much connected via the web, and filled with tech savvy people who are going to look askance at sheer incompetence. Particularly when half of their links are begging for money.
And with that, I think I’ll no longer post here or at B&W about how awfully designed SPI.net is. I went down the rabbit-hole a bit. :)
* I’ve spent way too much time at this site today. Partner and I are moving shortly, and inspecting/critiquing the SPI site has been a fantastic way to procrastinate while removing errant pieces of packing tape from various bodily orifices.
** True, people should really upgrade to current versions and prune bad add-ons. But hey, if you’re going to fleece people, you should make it easy. Having your DONATE HERE button appear offscreen really doesn’t help your grift.
*** Fuck IE. I really can’t be mad at SPI for not acknowledging IE’s existence. IE is like religion — it poisons everything.
For the linearly-reading at home, you may note that the previous post was subjected to CopyPasta Monster attacks. I’ll go hide in a corner now.
@#79, PatrickG:
Dawkins always jumps immediately to gaslighting denials when he is caught doing something embarrassing. His next tactic, when this fails, is to pretend nothing happened with all his might. And then he proceeds to refusing to ever meet or talk to the people who point out his behavior ever again.
Even Microsoft admits this. According to a news story I saw on ComputerWorld, the next version of Windows will ship without IE. Of course, they’ll still have a web browser, and it will still use the IE codebase. But they have noticed that everyone hates IE and so they’re going to rename it rather than fixing the problems, to confuse people about what “Internet Explorer” means. (Speaking of behaving like a parody of one’s self…)
In retrospect, that last long post was most likely inappropriate for this forum. I hope some people might have found something in it interesting (cf Vicar!), but between work and packing… I can only plead as excuse the fact that I am a creature of pure caffeine, spiraling through the cosmos, wondering at frequent moments why sleep eludes me, remembering, and then getting back to work. :)
@ Vicar: I think I may misunderstand what gaslighting means in this context. Or maybe it’s just my inability to apply it to a situation where the lie can be documented publicly from the gaslighters own proprietary content. Attempted gaslighting? I don’t dispute your characterization of the behavior, but it almost feels like there should be a different term when said behavior requires revisionist history on the part of many, many people.
@ dianagoods: Welcome from a person who normally lurks, though you wouldn’t know it right now. :)
Patrick G @79:
Yeah, it’s a half-truth at minimum. Monsarrat himself claims to have been with the RDF for two years, and some light Googling brings up all sorts of evidence for a connection. He wasn’t an obscure, low-ranking figure either.
Hmm, doesn’t seem like it got very far.
The SPI is an embarrassment. There are a world of problems and a greater world of creative ideas that could be generated to solve them. The SPI offers no leadership, no vision.
Jesus. Did he actually get a million dollars for that blank web page?
I haven’t the foggiest; the only mentions I can find of this project is Monsarrat’s splashy presentation, said website, and maybe a Twitter account. No mention of it from the RDF side at all. For a million-dollar project, there’s an eerie amount of radio silence about it.
But is he also familiar with all Internet traditions?
Makes sense.
I’m having surprisingly much fun in this thread!
@83 I wonder if this amazing million dollar Secular Connect webpage is what ultimately became the SPI website itself.