Greta Christina has been writing professionally since 1989, on topics including atheism, sexuality and sex-positivity, LGBT issues, politics, culture, and whatever crosses her mind. She is author of
The Way of the Heathen: Practicing Atheism in Everyday Life, of
Comforting Thoughts About Death That Have Nothing to Do with God, of
Coming Out Atheist: How to Do It, How to Help Each Other, and Why, of
Why Are You Atheists So Angry? 99 Things That Piss Off the Godless, and of
Bending: Dirty Kinky Stories About Pain, Power, Religion, Unicorns, & More, and is editor of
Paying For It: A Guide by Sex Workers for Their Clients. She has been a public speaker for many years, and many of her talks can be seen on YouTube. Her writing has appeared in multiple magazines and newspapers, including Ms., Penthouse, Chicago Sun-Times, On Our Backs, and Skeptical Inquirer, and numerous anthologies, including
Everything You Know About God Is Wrong and three volumes of
Best American Erotica. (Any views she expresses in this blog are solely hers, and do not necessarily represent this organizations.) She lives in San Francisco with her wife, Ingrid. You can email her at gretachristina (at) gmail (dot) com, or follow her on
Facebook.
Really, nobody? OK, I’ll ask it then: why should we contact CFI, exactly?
CFI’s board have… not demonstrated a eagerness, shall we say, to hear from the public. From the sounds of it, Stollznow presented them with a fair bit of evidence to back up her claims, only to be minimized and have it swept under the carpet. More evidence probably won’t do much, unless external pressure is brought to bear. Stollznow herself would be a better place do direct evidence to.
I bet I’m missing something, though.
@ 1 hjhornbeck
If you don’t mind me saying so, you may be missing the “please make them public” part.
hjhornbeck @ #1: Because more evidence makes it harder for them to ignore. Because it’s easier to ignore one person making a complaint than it is to ignore one person making a complaint with several other people corroborating her story and making it more plausible. Because more people reporting their evidence or personal accounts is “external pressure.” Because some of us are trying to give CFI the benefit of the doubt, and give them a chance to do the right thing — and more evidence will make it easier for them to do that.
Silentbob @2:
I don’t mind at all, becau-
Greta Christina @3:
Yeah, exactly. But here’s the thing: they’ve already had a tonne of evidence, from those who were directly involved no less. If Stollznow is correct (and she probably is), they dismissed and minimized it.
Problem: any evidence we could gather by calling for it would be much weaker than what they have on hand. If they dismissed/minimized strong evidence, what makes anyone think they’ll take weaker evidence more seriously, even if it is in greater number?
Stollznow already had that, in the form of Blake Smith. He was part of the same podcast, knew both parties well, and from his own statements we know he was involved in the investigation. What are the odds that someone else could provide as good a testimony as him, yet be completely ignored until now?
We’ve already tried that after the WiS2 debacle. Despite quite a bit of external pressure, CFI issued a “fuck off” of a non-pology and did absolutely nothing. They’ve already made their move, in the form of that statement. They’ve already crossed and dotted their legal I’s and T’s. They are sitting on solid ground, and any movement away from that would be an admission they screwed up. They are not going to respond to pressure.
The same benefit of the doubt we gave them after WiS2? Remember, a lot of us backed down because Lindsay showed signs of getting the point; so far as we know, the board still supports his speech 100%, and they are the one’s we’re trying to get to now. Remember, they’ve already made their move, by issuing that statement wiping their hands of the mess.
It’s our move now, and I say we encourage people to come forward publicly. That will drive away donors and investors, hitting them where they pay the most attention: their bottom line.
hjhornbeck @ #4: Will you please, please, stop trying to persuade people with evidence or experience of workplace sexual harassment to NOT report it to the company in question?
Yes, also reporting it publicly would be good, if people think they can do that, Not everyone can. If there are people who feel that they can’t go public, but can report their information to CFI, that is more helpful than not reporting it at all. Please stop discouraging victims and witnesses of sexual harassment from reporting it to whoever they feel okay about reporting it to.Thanks.
Christina @5:
Whoa whoa whoa, I wasn’t arguing for that. What I was arguing was that, in this one particular case, I don’t think it makes sense to go to the company with additional information. In the general case I’m in complete agreement with you, bringing evidence of harassment to the company in question should be one of the first steps taken. I apologize if my writing wasn’t clear on that point. And to head off another possible misunderstanding:
Agreed 100% here, too. No-one is required to be a hero. You should not bring evidence to the public unless you are capable and comfortable of defending it.
Ok, back to this one particular case. I quote Stollznow:
If what she is saying is correct (and I have no reason to doubt it), then CFI have a history of minimizing or silencing harassment and assault claims. Given that, what good would it do to provide them with more information about a case they’ve closed? They certainly imply they’re finished in the press release:
If the case has been “diligent”ly handled, what difference would it make if they were handed more information? If they had more would they treat it fairly and equitably, in contradiction of the evidence that suggests they would not? Throwing more evidence at them would be like bringing more evidence in front of a crooked judge. It wouldn’t convince them, and in the worst case it would make it easier to dig up dirt on the witnesses in order to discredit them.
I hope the CFI board isn’t that crooked, but given what we saw in response to WiS2, and what Stollznow has handed us…. I’m not willing to extend them any more charity.
Hi Greta! As a feminist and atheist, I’ve really appreciated your and other bloggers’ courage in bringing this issue to light.
I have a question about how to handle allegations of rape and sexual harassment. In the local atheist group that I am only now tenuously connected to (because so many members display open disdain for women and feminists), Karen’s allegations have been discussed only briefly, and with criticism and disbelief. Basically, they’re saying: “Well we ARE skeptics after all, and skeptic means we need PROOF! DUURRRR”
But with something like rape, or the kind of sexual harassment Karen experienced (and I do understand Karen has lots of proof, but I’m talking about a case where perhaps, like many cases, there’s not much proof beyond the victim’s testimony), what is the best way to handle cases where there’s not much physical proof? Because I understand how little rape/harassment is actually prosecuted and how difficult it is to accuse someone, I favor giving the accuser the benefit of the doubt.
I guess I’m asking: what’s the best way to respond to these people, who say that there must be ample physical evidence in order to actually DO something about harassment or rape? In the real world, it would be awesome if every person who experienced this kind of abuse had ample physical evidence, but it just doesn’t happen that way. I don’t for one second believe that that means we shouldn’t believe the victim. What do you think?
[…] I got this comment on my blog from Hannah […]
@Hannah Barnhardt
Don’t underestimate the power of forensics. You’d be surprised how quickly and precisely these folks can usually tell if a rape/assault allegation has any credibility, or not.
For non-violent human interactions: Go and get an audio recorder of some sort. Or find witnesses. Or surveillance footage. Any evidence is good.
tiberiusbeauregard @ #8: Right. Which is why, out of every 100 rapes, 3 rapists are convicted.
Right. Because when you’re being harassed, the sensible thing to do is to run out and get an audio recorder or gather witnesses, go back in time to when the harassment started, and record it. Or make sure that you get harassed in a place where there’s video surveillance. m-/
This is the second instance of rape denialism from this commenter in this blog. I don’t see any reason to tolerate any more. Banned.