NoGodBlog.com

"Seasoned atheists"? Huh.

I'm curious what the legal reasons for not wanting to affiliate AA with the march are.

You can see that Frank is watching the blog and listening to comments. He's in a tough position and is trying to make statements that will satisfy the membership and the attorneys at the same time.

It doesn't matter Cynic,

What matters is that the board voted and instructed Ellen "no march", and she did it anyway, under AA's banner.

Well, I guess they did what they had to do...
Mr. Zindler, thank you for the update. It really helps (for me, at least).

Well, that clears things up a little.

Dave,

What matters is that the board voted and instructed Ellen "no march", and she did it anyway, under AA's banner.

If this was a problem, then why did you do a post on it and elicit support from us here on this site? That predisposed me to think it was sanctioned by the organization, just that there were no funds to cover it.

And I would like to ask Frank, just how are he and the board going about the process of finding a new president?

"Complex legal reasons" probably means some kind of liability concerns. My guess is that the board didn't want to be on the hook for damages if anything happened on the march.

Thank you, Mr. Zindler.

Karen,

Because I work for the President, and do not have access to the board meetings. I was unaware of the conflict, so I did what the President told me to do. This is still the case.

As to the next president, I would guess the answer is "we are endeavoring to find the best person to fill Ellen's huge shoes, and are employing all appropriate means to that end." You know, something really definitive.

Rusty, my guess is that's exactly it, and the board needed to drop her immediately (as opposed to after the march) for that reason.

I was neutral on Zindler, but now that I see nothing but legalese, I have lost confidence.

Thanks, Frank, for the explanation. Sorry you drew the short straw and got the thankless job of temporary president.

And now I vent ...

Unfortunately I thought the Bill Moore Freedom Walk was one of the best things anyone representing atheists has done in a long time. Before I heard of the walk I had pretty much decided to let my AA membership expire because there are other organizations that do most of the stuff AA does only better. The walk renewed my enthusiasm for AA enough to change my mind.

Of course now I'm sure I'm not going to renew, not because Ellen was fired, but because the direction I'd like to see AA go is apparently not the direction the Board is going to take it. I truly hope I'm one of the few members who feels that way because I still want AA to succeed (whatever that means).

I'd be curious to hear from other posters, what is it that makes you want to be a member of AA as opposed to (or in addition to) other organizations?

For me I think it has been two things. First I just liked being a card carrying atheist, though that stopped being fun a while ago. Second I thought that Ellen and Dave (and Ron Barrier before Dave) did a pretty good job of publicly representing atheists in a positive way.

The magazine, the protests, and the legal actions - that's stuff I don't really care about or that other organizations do much better than AA. Of course if you discard all those things, I'm not sure what's left other than just promoting atheism as a positive, moral, rational way of being. Not sure how you do that, but that's what I'd like to see.

So it looks like Ellen was fired because of the Bill Moore March and related liability concerns. Like jeff_r I think this was one of the best things AA has done in a while. Like Karen I have to wonder why AA seemed to continue to promote the event.

Still stinks!

I didn't say it mattered -- I said I wanted to know. No reason to get defensive...

AA has no legal responsibility to tell us anything. Clearly this is a delicate matter.

It's appalling to me how many of you behave with so much fierce entitlement. We have truly become a society where every last vestige of every last secret is presumed to be public property, and speculation rushes to fill the vacuum of silence.

My guess is that Ellen Johnson was demoted because she was focusing AA's efforts more on the historical aspects of atheism instead of focusing group efforts on what is currently happening. Those are dinosaur aged events from the '60s(like Bill Moore and the case to take Bible Readings out of public schools) compared to the fast-paced world wide web movements of today. You simply have to keep up on what's newly happening in the confines of atheism, you know, with everybody now openly coming out and doing their own part to end religion and theism in the world. Ellen's methods just simply aren't with the times, they're slow and simply can't keep up with the day to day events.

What's appalling is getting thumped down for wondering aloud what legal issues might be attached to sponsoring walking along a road. Entitled or not, wondering on its own doesn't make one anything other than a guy with a question.

This sort of complaint is devisive and may well be typical of a freethought organization like AA, but isn't very appropriate for a freethought organization in general, IMO. "Think freely (but keep it to yourself!)" isn't a very good motto.

On a further note, she was removed for being withdrawn and detached from the opinions of AA. If majority vote says "no march" because of legal reasons in addition to popular opinion in general, then Ellen shouldn't have marched.

(1) Racial segregation ended a long time ago. Wake up and smell reality, we have a black man who could possibly be president or vice president very soon. Perhaps such a misguided freedom walk was politically motivated?

(2) American Atheists is dedicated to Atheist rights, it does not have anything to do with black rights. AA could definantly use it's resources to promote something that is much more relevant to atheism, such as getting rid of the need to be called an atheist by getting rid of government endorsed theism.

(3) Perhaps AA doesn't shouldn't want to be associated with any political factions or political parties at either the state or federal level since there may be a time when there is an atheist or freethinking republican or democrate running for presidency.

QF's Blog: http://irrationaltheorist.blogspot.com/

AA has no legal responsibility to tell us anything. Clearly this is a delicate matter.

Agreed, and I said as much previously on another thread. Of course, comments like this do get some people's panties in a bunch.

Mr. Zindler's comments reveal far more information about this situation than I ever expected to learn, and my curiosity is satisfied. The board seems to have acted appropriately, and it is time to move on.

As far as the "Bill Moore March" is concerned, I have to disagree with some here. I thought it was a rather strange thing for the president of American Atheists to be undertaking, unless it was on her own time. Surely the president of AA should have had more important things to do on a daily basis than spending that much time on a relatively peripheral issue. Having the information posted on the American Atheists website and on this blog made it appear at the time that the walk was approved by AA. Obviously, that was not true. Interesting. To me, it speaks volumes about Ms. Johnson, and not in a positive way.

Tarma and thx1138

AA has no legal responsibility to tell us anything.

Has somebody actually argued otherwise? We are under no legal obligation to support AA.

It's appalling to me how many of you behave with so much fierce entitlement.

We are attempting to protect our investment. Where does this "entitlement" talk come from?

AA has no legal responsibility to tell us anything. Clearly this is a delicate matter.

It is true that AA doesn't have to say anything, but that's exactly what you would expect of an atheist organization instead of a freethinking atheist organization. Also, I find it sickening how you flock, your sheep mentality, would just not even speculate or anything. It's not like anything is actually hidden, it's just a matter of putting 2 and 2 together. Ellen simply was incompetent as president so the board voted her down. Nothing delicate about this situation, nothing at all. Also, as an atheist, I don't have to be kind, I can gladly be rude since that is within my capacities every bit as much as being honest and having integrity is. There are no "rules" that atheists have to abide by.

I'm a staff member of American Atheists. I've worked closely with Ellen Johnson for the past two years. I've also had interaction with a few of the most prominent board members regarding various projects that they and I were both working on. (I also worked for the O'Hairs, back in the early 1980's.)

Ellen is not perfect, of course. Just like the board members, I've argued with her about how various things should be done. Ellen's representation of atheists in the media is not perfect. Ellen's editing of the magazine is not perfect. Ellen's decisions about what endeavors to engage American Atheists in are not perfect. Ellen's ability to manage her board of directors has always been weak.

On the other hand, Ellen is a "get-things-done" kind of person. She is forward-thinking and courageous when it comes to taking a stand for atheists. She is an excellent person to work for. She empowers her staff to be fully responsible for our own work and she empowers us to try new things to improve office efficiency and customer service. She is the most fair and compassionate employer I have ever had.

Ellen's experience and her role as the primary spokesperson for atheists in America are irreplaceable. There is no one who will put in as much effort as she does, with as much enthusiasm and passion, asking for so little in return.

Don't get me wrong, Ellen sometimes drives me crazy! Sometimes, I have had to put in a great deal of effort and show her that something could work. Only then would she agree to support it. In this way, I have gradually gained more and more of Ellen's trust. Winning her support for a new idea is much easier than it used to be.

In my experience, the board of directors have not done the work necessary to gain Ellen's trust. In my opinion, they have lost sight of their role as advisors to the president. For a long time, Ellen has been in the drivers seat, and they have been happy to have her there. Their desire to remove her is a fairly recent development.

I have felt that Ellen, myself, and Rachel Carroll have developed into an excellent office team. Together, we have accomplished a sustained increase in membership numbers over the past couple of years. However, accomplishing the organization's many goals and making ends meet financially has been a continual struggle.

The board has been of very little help. The board has always been given the appropriate financial reports. In fact, I have made it my goal to improve the level of detail in those reports. Rachel and I have been working hard to make that happen and have made a lot of progress.

I have also made it my goal to try to improve communications with the board of directors. With Ellen's approval, I sent an invitation to each of them to join a private online discussion group where we could post data and project summaries and get their input. Only two board members responded to my invitation, and one of them was Ellen. One of the projects that Ellen and I were hoping to get the board involved in was a complete redesign of the American Atheists website.

Partly, I think they were just too busy to bother signing up, but also, I think they resented my involvement for some reason. Like Dave, I'm not on the board, so I have to rely on hearsay to have any clue to what they're thinking.

After the firing of Ellen, Frank told me that my job was secure. (I am currently living in upstate New York and continuing to work half-time for American Atheists as a second, work-from-home job.) However, I hear that I have been characterized at one board meeting as "not able to work well with others" because of conflicts with Ed Gauci (our webmaster) and with Bart Meltzer (who was involved in developing our new database). Also, I have been accused by Frank of impeding the work of American Atheist Press by PURPOSELY not replying to his emails, accused by Dick Hogan (board treasurer) of withholding online passwords to financial accounts, and accused by Bart Meltzer of not planning to stick around for the long haul.

They've been been bending over backwards to be nice to me, since they fired Ellen. However, given their history of false accusations, I don't have much confidence in their assurances about my job security.

In case the picture isn't crystal clear at this point, I see these board members as a bunch of whining old men who are threatened by a strong, female president and threatened by me, Ellen's trusted advisor (a role that they SHOULD be playing). They respect Ellen's abilities, but at the same time, are threatened by them.

Fear and self-importance seem to be the principles driving them. They have repeatedly made a show of working with us in a professional manner, and then slipped back into making accusations and demands. I think they have a great deal to contribute if they can find it within themselves to become better team players.

The board's statement that they don't want to embarrass or disgrace Ellen by disclosing their accusations against her is a self-serving way to cover up the pettiness of their accusations. If they are serious, then they are seriously deluded.

Their justifications for firing Ellen keep changing. Also, they have changed their minds, multiple times. At first, Frank thought the freedom walk was a brilliant idea. Then, Bart started to stir up panic about the imagined dangers Ellen might face. Because of all the negativity and because Ellen wanted to have a surprise reunion of the surviving freedom walkers at the convention, she didn't trust the board members enough to confide in them about her plans. They are trying to spin this as a purposeful deception of the board, which isn't quite the case. At one point, the board approved the freedom walk, as long as Ellen agreed not to use American Atheists funds or say that it was an official American Atheists event. At other times, their story is that the walk was NOT approved because of liability risks to participants.

The board is afraid to take risks, in general, and they resent Ellen's confidence and decisiveness. Edwin Kagin (legal director) voted to fire her because he thought some of the legal battles she wanted to pursue were too risky. Frankly, Ellen has some good legal advisors and Edwin is just one of them.

Frank, Edwin and others have been critical of Ellen's editing of the magazine, stating that as one of the reasons for firing her. As I said earlier, Ellen isn't the perfect editor. However, since she took over from Frank as editor in April 2006, the magazine has been livelier and more relevant to the average person. She has also managed to get the magazine to the printer EVERY MONTH, before they were ready for it. Frank had trouble keeping up as editor, and his version of the magazine was quarterly.

Dick Hogan offered (as board treasurer) to participate in the efforts to increase the level of detail in our financial reports to the board. He wasn't able to help as much as he had originally anticipated. Then, he accused Ellen of withholding financial details from the board and gave that as a reason for firing her.

So, the board's long list of petty grievances can be summed up in three categories: 1) their own indecisiveness (the freedom walk), 2) their fear of taking risks (freedom walk, choice of legal battles), and 3) criticisms about things that they have no interest in taking responsibility for (magazine editing, improved detail in financial reports).

Instead of taking responsibility for the criticism that their ill-advised actions have generated, the board is trying to blame it all on Ellen. Each time one of you speaks out against what they have done, they assume that Ellen has fed information to that person and told them what to say against the board. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ellen has way too much integrity and self-respect to stoop to that.

So yes, board members, I have talked to Ellen, and yes, she has shared numerous details about your accusations. However, am confident that she will be initially appalled when she sees what I have written. This is the last thing that she would ever have wanted me to do. Hopefully, she will understand my reasons for speaking out.

I care about the future of American Atheists. Over the last couple of years, I have invested a lot of effort in improving the way things run at the office. I would hate to see my efforts wasted and I would hate to see everyone's donations and membership dues wasted.

The board members really didn't want to fire Ellen. It was just another example of being afraid of risk. This time, the risk was that they might never get another chance. They had a chance now because they had convinced each other of such a long list of grievances. So, they jumped at the chance. They jumped without thinking. They had no transition plan whatsoever. It was extremely irresponsible and puts American Atheists in a very weak position.

Once the decsion was made to fire Ellen, they started pointing at each other. Nobody wanted to be in charge. Frank wanted Conrad Goeringer to be president. Conrad (despite the fact that he has been collecting a full salary from American Atheists for years) managed to weasel of it. Frank got nominated, but agreed to be president only if Conrad would agree to be Office Administrator and work full time at the Atheist Center.

The board members have no "new direction" planned for American Atheists. They don't even have a plan for how to continue what Ellen and the rest of us were already doing. They are getting off to a very slow start. Most of their focus so far has been on erasing Ellen's name from all official documents and rearranging the office. Conrad's first few days at the office were spent dismantling the overflow stock room (boxes of paperback books) that I organized so carefully last Summer. He's making it into a tiny bedroom so he can live at the office.

They've changed the locks on the doors and opened a new PO Box in Cranford. It's a new direction for American Atheists! They have yet to institute a single change that they couldn't have done without firing Ellen. Their plan to find a more permanent replacement for Ellen is turning out to be a complete fantasy. They envisioned getting some big-name person, but it's becoming clear "president" was a thankless job with low pay.

Why am I making such a big deal about all of this? Because it was so unnecessary and so destructive. I've tried everything else. I've talked to Frank, Dick, Conrad, and Neal Cary. I've told each of them that I thought this was a huge mistake. Each one of them has told me the same thing: "I have tremendous respect for Ellen, but what's done is done. We have to move on now."

So, what do I expect to happen now? That's easy. I expect to be fired and then blamed when the organization finally fails.

...unless they can find a way to put aside their pride and arrogance and reinstate the person who has earned the title of president. After all the horrible things that they have said (or implied) about Ellen and after the disgraceful way that she was just dumped, they owe her a huge apology.

It's not that Ellen is the only person who could ever run this organization. It's just that she was fired for all of the wrong reasons and fired in a very wrong way. None of us want to be the kind of person who would treat someone like that.

Did the board do anything illegal? Absolutely not. They had every legal right to make this stupid move. And we have every legal right to speak out against it.

What can you do to help? You can keep posting comments on the No God Blog and other blogs. Hold their feet to the fire! Don't let them get away with this. Remember, WE'RE not destroying American Atheists. They are!

Arthur Brenner
Manager of Office Improvement Projects
American Atheists

Shit happens to the best of us. I don't expect Ellen to grovel to get her job back, I expect her to go her seperate way and establish something even better than AA. American Atheists is a dinosaur, it's big and sluggish. You can't just take risks when you're big and sluggish, you need to be small and agile if you're going to take such risks. Consider how organized Microsoft is, they don't do anything unless it's extremely calculated, it wasn't that way in the beginning though. In the beginning, any company needs to take huge risks, and with no gaurentees of success whatsoever. Look, there are plenty of fresh people out there that would love to work under an organization for Ellen, they would love to take risks, but perhaps just calculated and well thought out ones.

Arthur

Thank you. I appreciate the risk you are taking to get us information about the firing of Ellen Johnson. Your post definitely sheds some much needed light on the situation. The board should have displayed a bit more wisdom and anticipated that their opacity would only generate suspicion.

If the board does fire you - a whistle blower - that will be the last straw for me and I will take my financial support elsewhere.

They've changed the locks on the doors and opened a new PO Box in Cranford.

What's next? Are they going to change their names? Surgically alter their features? What the heck are they afraid of? Changed the locks on the doors? Sheeesh! Is Ellen a part-time axe murderer?

Wow...aren't we one big happy family...

One of the ugly truths of life is "politics" develop whenever there are two or more people attempting to accomplish something.

One thing is obvious. There is a total lack of communication within AA.

My two cents...

This proves the value of term limits for a position like president. Something about absolute power corrupts absolutely...

This would force the board to be more involved...

There should also be more communications between the board and Dave. If there had been such a concern about the march, they should have contacted Dave directly so that he knew their position.

It is so unfortunate when these type of events happen within any organization.

IMO, the acting president should now follow up with a letter stating AA's new direction.

The truth is, I'll bet over 90% of AA's members don't have a clue of what's just happened. That is unless there's an email news letter...

Don't you hate it when the troll is right :(

Arthur, thanks very much and best of luck to you.

I think Madalyn would be appalled to see that her organization is now being run by people who are afraid of their own shadows.

Thank you Arthur, for your rather enlightening detailed description of the events surrounding Ellen's firing.

As one of the people who continued to push for answers here on this blog, I can assure the board that I have had absolutely no contact with Ellen, and any reasons I supposed for her ousting were mere conjecture on my part.

It is disheartening to hear they had no plan in place to cover her absence, no "new direction," and can't even keep up with the day-to-day workings of the operation without her. They have indeed jeopardized the organization.

I hope that they can pull together to find a solution to the mess they've made, and that you don't become collateral damage because of this dissemination of information.

No board term limits. No executive officer term limits. Insufficient board engagement and oversight. I have lived this nightmare where I used to work. Very, very sad to see it happening here as well.

It can be turned around, though it will likely be a very slow and frustrating process. I sincerely hope for the best.

A thank you is in order to Arthur for the long and impassioned response to bloggers questions regarding what happened to Ellen. Hopefully, Ellen will eventually respond to bloggers concerns.

I am not a member yet, but have been following this imbroglio from the back seat, because of my familial relationship with Jeanne and Gil Gaudia who have edited and written for the magazine for the past two years. I have never met Ellen in person, but have seen her on various t.v. shows albeit for a quick minute or two. Jeanne and Gil have nothing but the most positive feelings for Ellen, based on their close working relationship with her.

I have always thought that Ellen is/was the most impressive representative of Atheist ideals we've had in a very long time. I did wonder about the walk, however, since I thought it was a "dated" endeavor as opposed to the billboards which are going up in many cities, and which will reach a vast number of non-believers, which is, one would hope, the ultimate goal of American Atheists. It seems to me that the billboards are a better use of time and money.

From Arthur's notes, it would appear that the Board did very little of significance and let Ellen run the show for a long time. It's time for Ellen to speak, since she is and has been the eyes, ears, head and heart of American Atheists. Ellen, where are you?

A thank you is in order to Arthur for the long and impassioned response to bloggers questions regarding what happened to Ellen. Hopefully, Ellen will eventually respond to bloggers concerns.

I am not a member yet, but have been following this imbroglio from the back seat, because of my familial relationship with Jeanne and Gil Gaudia who have edited and written for the magazine for the past two years. I have never met Ellen in person, but have seen her on various t.v. shows albeit for a quick minute or two. Jeanne and Gil have nothing but the most positive feelings for Ellen, based on their close working relationship with her.

I have always thought that Ellen is/was the most impressive representative of Atheist ideals we've had in a very long time. I did wonder about the walk, however, since I thought it was a "dated" endeavor as opposed to the billboards which are going up in many cities, and which will reach a vast number of non-believers, which is, one would hope, the ultimate goal of American Atheists. It seems to me that the billboards are a better use of time and money.

From Arthur's notes, it would appear that the Board did very little of significance and let Ellen run the show for a long time. It's time for Ellen to speak, since she is and has been the eyes, ears, head and heart of American Atheists. Ellen, where are you?

Thank you, Mr. Brenner, for your eye-opening post. I hope you don't have to suffer for posting it.

Although I've tried to make the best of it, things never did smell right, and now I have an idea why... anyway, for what it's worth, I think I'll follow What's example and tie my continued membership to your fate in the organization. Good luck.

AH, Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.

I agree that Arthur Brenner's post was brave, and rather informative. I've put it up at the NYC Atheists Blog as I felt our members would appreciate it.

Also, I find Frank Zindler and the Board's position about potential liability legitimate but somewhat weak-willed. Perhaps that's not so much their fault as it is the fault of the litigious society in which we live.

Finally, I do also find myself questioning the significance of Ellen Johnson's march. It was, as someone above pointed out, a dated and peripheral issue at best. Was it done for Ellen to garner some public coverage for AA? Or did she have a more personal reason? Why didn't she organize a march against Creationism in schools? Or against honor killings? Or against parents who pray for their children in lieu of providing medical assistance? It seems there are far many more pressing issues facing atheism and secularism that could easily have taken priority.

From Arthur's notes, it would appear that the Board did very little of significance and let Ellen run the show for a long time.

Well, that's always the easy route. Actually, no one should be "running the show," as in furthering their own personal agendas or unilaterally deciding on what direction the organization is going to take, be it board members or the CEO. If it does not already have one, AA needs to have a strong mission statement so that the members are clear about what it is they are supporting. The responsibility of the board and the president should be to achieve that mission. Nothing more, nothing less. It shouldn't be about any individual; it should be about the success of the organization.

Arthur,

Poor taste.

You claim to know so much because you've been a part-time employee for two years, but in reality you don't know what happened behind closed doors. You don't know the board members well, and you don't really know Ellen, aside from being a paid employee.

You don't know what went down from an objective point of view, only what a very angry Ellen has told you. And you apparently have not really heard the Board's side.

And you don't know how a non-profit works. The President works for the board, not vice-versa. The president is managed by the board, not vice-versa. When the board gives an answer, it is not an opinion, it's a DIRECTIVE that the president must follow.

So if Ellen had expressly ordered you NOT to do something, and you did it anyway (as an employee), what do you think Ellen would do? How about if, in Ellen's opinion, your actions directly endangered the organization? What would she do? She's can your ass.

Now that you've blathered your ill-informed opinion on the blog, you've placed this Board in the position of keeping on a complaining and insulting office manager who publicly defames some of the movement's greatest activists, or having to retrain a new office manager while finding a new president. Nice timing.

Bad form, Arthur.

Please, oh please, don't tell me that America's best-organized atheist group is really weakening because of petty politics or the egos of the leaders. Perhaps the hard work of organizing atheists really is like herding cats - everyone is so independent-minded that unified effort becomes impossible to acheive. Then there is the puzzle of how to speak a united message loud and clear while not being oppressive to internal dissidents. Many organizations struggle with this issue.

Yet we should be well aware that our lock-step religious-right opponents generally do not have such worries. They take their orders from the top, don't question their leaders, tolerate little dissent, and operate with the ruthless efficiency of an army. Their dedication, efficiency and effectiveness is the key to how successfully they have taken away our rights.

Those of you who have threatened to quit AA over this political hissy fit should recognize that this must-have-it-my-way mentality is part of the problem. Liberal Christians go to conservative churches every week and refuse to quit donating. That's why the churches are politically stronger than us.

Arthur, I can envision your gossip post being read on the radio by a gleeful Rush Limbaugh.

Finally, anyone who gets too worked up over this issue should consider whether this diversion of resources whould be a good decision if it resulted in the loss of a legal battle and you later found that your tax dollars were going to teaching religion in biology classrooms.

Dave,

I know you'd like it to be that easy. You'd like to quickly dismiss me as a "part-time employee" who doesn't really have any inside information.

Please re-read my original post.

You parrot the board's dogma that an "angry Ellen" is behind all criticisms of the board.

Please re-read my original post.

Your statements reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between an employer and employee (and between a board and its president). We're not in the military here, Dave. A good employee often respectfully disagrees with what they are initially told to do. A good employer is open to discuss the employee's ideas. What develops is a team atmosphere where people work together to achieve a common goal.

Please re-read my original post.

It is a good thing to question authority. Anything less is very un-atheist-like.

Yes, the fact that I have "blathered" my "ill-informed opinion" on the blog puts the board in a difficult position. That was exactly my intent. By their irresponsible actions, the board has put American Atheists in a weakened position. Now, the consequences of their actions are back on their own shoulders.

I'm not forcing them to fire me. That is still their decision. They are responsible for the consequences of ALL their decisions.

Your angry response to my post reflects a very un-atheist-like devotion to this extremely dysfunctional board of directors.

Bad form, Dave.

PLEASE READ: FROM BART MELTZER

Now it's my turn to chime in.

For those of you who don't know, I'm the director of state and regional operations for American Atheists. That is, I appoint and manage state directors. I’ve been doing that job for over five and half years.

I also headed up a project to replace the AA membership database with a new program. This project spanned three years. I also performed various other jobs. I’m also on the board of directors.

Ellen Johnson is my significant other. We have been together for almost six years now.

I read Arthur’s post above. I can’t believe that several Atheists accepted Arthur’s post like it’s gospel. Any of you who think Arthur’s post answers questions are as much suckers as the people that followed Jimmy Jones and drank the Goofy G(r)ape. Many of you have questioned everything that Frank has said, but NO ONE has questioned ONE THING Arthur said.

So to all you people who thanked Arthur without any question, what the fuck is up with that?

Arthur DID NOT explain why the board fired Ellen. The truth is, Arthur does not know the details. He has only hearsay and second hand knowledge. Arthur lied through his teeth and he did so to generate animosity toward the board. Arthur made many accusations about board members that are just plain lies. Arthur wants a lot of people to pressure the board to reinstate Ellen, but what he is doing is just creating animosity toward the board and making everything much harder to reconcile.

Arthur has been causing animosity within American Atheists for as long as he’s been with AA. Every person that he mentioned in his post has had some type of conflict with Arthur including myself. It’s like this shit never ends. Arthur is a good part of the reason why many on the board have been so frustrated. Arthur would say he wants to work with us but when it came time to do that, he would not respond to emails or he would get an attitude. Just like in his post. In fact, Arthur’s post is a great example of how he has treated many of us on the board. Instead of trying to build bridges between the board and Ellen, Arthur has tried to make things worse. Same old story.

Arthur never expressed to the board any of the animosity he has. He didn’t say one word to anyone on the board about any of those issues he felt so strongly about. As far as the board knew, Arthur had no problems working for those who took over the running of AA. Arthur has been talking with Frank and Conrad on a regular basis and said nothing to them about any of this. I’d like to see Arthur call Conrad a weasel to Conrad’s face. Arthur’s post on this blog is the first indication to anyone on the board that he had any issues with how anything was handled. If a person has a problem with their boss, do they try to work it out with the boss or do they go public and tell everyone? Now maybe airing things out in public is appropriate sometimes, but doing that as a first recourse without even trying to work things out? And then making up lies and insulting them in public? If anyone should have been fired it was Arthur, not Ellen. Well, it looks like that will likely happen now. Several weeks ago a few of the board members had expressed optimism about working with Arthur after talking with him. I relayed to them that time will reveal differently. I was starting to think that maybe I was wrong. Guess I wasn’t.


Ellen is one of the hardest working and most dedicated persons I have ever known. She single handedly ran this organization for over thirteen years. Other people helped, but she ran it. I know of no one more dedicated than Ellen. But Ellen is not above making mistakes and she made quite a few. The biggest one is her refusal to accept the fact that the board had waken up after thirteen years of sleeping and was ready to start acting as a board. I can understand Ellen’s reluctance. Thirteen years is along time to be making all the decisions and then along comes these board members that want to take some responsibility for themselves. Myself included. If I was Ellen I would also be reluctant to share responsibility with those who are suddenly interested.

But the thing is, it’s the board’s job to make important decisions. Making important decisions is what they are supposed to be doing. So the board tried to do this for the last few months. Some board members have been trying to fulfill their duty since last year but were met with resistance. So no one person is to blame, but no one person is exempt from blame either.

Because of Ellen’s dedication and continuous hard work she would not release any responsibilities to the board. The board wanted to make changes and Ellen did not. The board saw many things wrong with the way things were going and Ellen thought everything was just fine. The details of the differences are not important. The fact that could not be resolved are.


The Bill Moore walk had little to do with Ellen’s firing. It was a small factor, but in and of itself was not that significant. What was significant was the inability of Ellen and the board to work together through several deep disagreements. The Bill Moore walk was only one of those disagreements.

For the record, I was one of the board members that voted NOT to fire Ellen. I think the board and Ellen could have eventually worked things out but I was in the minority. My position is that there’s plenty of blame to go around for everyone. Including Ellen. If the board is to blame for an unnecessary firing then Ellen is equally to blame as she refused to compromise as much as the board did. Too many people were emotionally dug in to their positions including Ellen.

And that’s the bottom line. No one would compromise during that meeting. So the majority of the board members cast their vote after a three hour meeting. That’s how long it took to realize that no progress was being made and likely would not be made in the near future. In Ellen’s own words during the meeting: “When there is a disagreement between a board of directors and a president and it can’t be resolved, the board fires the president.” She said it, they did it. I asked everyone for more time to let things settle, but the board thought enough time had gone by already.


Now, what to do?

We want to build bridges, not burn them. To that end you can forget about that vindictive bullshit that Arthur spewed. That will go no where. If you want Ellen back as president (as I do) then we all MUST work together to reach compromises and resolve differences. I don’t know if it’s possible to bring Ellen back and I also don’t know if Ellen wants that herself but it’s the optimum situation that I foresee. Everyone made mistakes including me and now it’s time to start working to fix those mistakes. I’ll post my account of how the Bill Moore walk issue evolved and the concerns that were expressed about it.

Arthur has said several negative things about a lot of people. BUT, a lot of people can say many negative things about Arthur. Which is worse? Does it matter? Is that what we want? It’s not what I want and I hope it’s not what anyone here wants either. So if anyone on this blog wants to help then start encouraging everyone to work together and quit trying to lay blame on the board, Ellen, or anyone else.

For all the naysayers out there: American Atheists is much bigger than any one person. If anyone thinks that AA is just about Ellen Johnson or Madalyn or anyone else then they’re in the wrong organization. Go find some organization where the leader wants to be worshipped. Evangelicals come to mind. AA is a team and always will be. Even when Ellen ran the organization she could not do that without all the staff, volunteers and members who helped.

So if you want to be a part of the most active national Atheist organization in the world then you’ll have no problem getting passed this. This organization will survive just fine. It survived after the O’Hair’s disappeared (which was much more traumatic) and it will do so again. Will it include Ellen Johnson? Not if everyone keeps fighting that’s for sure. So let’s get passed all this petty bullshit and start working together.

Those who don’t want to work together and want to fight are welcome to leave. The rest of us will stay and fight for our cause.

Bart Meltzer,
Director of State and Regional Operations,
American Atheists, Inc.
Board Member,
American Atheists, Inc,
United Secularists of America

Yea! Great response Bart! Best of luck to the volunteers (Board members) and president/ex-president/temp president while they all figure out what the next steps are.

Now - for those of you who keep writing in about "not being a member yet - but going to join" what are you waiting for? It Sunday - and every church just brought in tons of cash in their colection plate - allowing them to fund many things important to them.

We - as atheists- have no gathering day to remind us that it costs money to keep the lights on and the computer server running - so please pitch in.

Wouldn't it be nice if AA had enough $$ to fully fund a full-time President at a modern salary? To be able to pay those volunteers/board members back for some of their time? Maybe a little cashola to reimburse the Blog master.

I just checked - it is now $15 bucks for a mini-membership. $35 for a full membership. $35 is nothing these days - when a double tall mocha at Starbucks is almost $4. Or another way - $35 bucks buys you an ENTIRE year membership. It only buys 9 gallons of gas which only lasts a week. So, why don't you take the 5 minutes it takes to join - and then the next time you comment - you can say "I'm a member and I think...."

Now, as for paid employees who aired office politics with the public - now in a semi-permanent medium - this blog - the response is a no-brainer. I can criticize my company all I want - online, in person, about directions it should take - or features that should be added to products - but once I cross the line and make public conversions of a private nature from upper exectutives or divuge sensitive info - my net access would be cut - the men in black would show up and escort me and my cardboard box of belongings to the door. A volunteer can say whatever they want - an employee cannot.

My partner was on the board of a non-profit - and changes had to be made. The board of about 5 people worked their fu**ing asses off - more than 20 hours a week. Boy - did the members scream and pitch a fit - probably about 300 people bitched - but only 15 showed up to help volunteer. Probably similar to how hard Ellen works/worked - for what I can only assume is about a third of what she should have been paid. Wouldn't have been nice for AA to have been able to pay her more the last 13 years? OR to be able to pay the next prez more?

Or, ask Dave - how much time he spends each day on this blog? That time is time away from family - wouldn't it be nice to at least give him a token thanks of some $$ each month? So, I know you can - reach in your pocket and donate 20 bucks to AA:
http://american.redcross.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ntld_main

and while you are at it donate $50 buck to the Red Cross for disaster relief:
http://american.redcross.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ntld_main

I see I made a typo - so to beat someone else to it:

Donate to AA here:
http://www.atheists.org/
click on the PayPal symbol

Donate to Red Cross here:
http://american.redcross.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ntld_main

And then call your remaining living parental figures and tell them you love them.

Bart

I don't think anybody is taking Authur's post as the last word on this matter. Far from it! The board has been opaque with regards to this unruly "transition" and Arthur's post was simply one of the first to shed even a little light on this situation. For that he should be commended. It's a shame that this matter was not aired more openly. Such opacity tends to lead to suspicion and the sniping we are presently seeing on these pages. This is not the way to build confidence in AA's leadership.

Here's my suggestion. Openness.

Is it any wonder AA is falling apart...?

PLEASE READ: FROM BART MELTZER

Arthur has been causing animosity within American Atheists for as long as he’s been with AA. Every person that he mentioned in his post has had some type of conflict with Arthur including myself. It’s like this shit never ends. Arthur is a good part of the reason why many on the board have been so frustrated.

I guess no one gets fired from AA...

This seems like high school...

All of you...grow the fuck up.

Bart, thank you for you informative post.

Whatever direction the Board takes now, I hope they make their goals, objectives, and policies clear to the membership. That's what I need in order to "buy in" to the future of this organization.

I hope things work out well for all involved. I also hope AA can pay a reasonable salary to any future president and staff.

I didn't realize how much of a one-woman show that Ellen was. She deserves our respect and well wishes.

Change is now upon us and I hope the organization takes good advantage of it to promote our cause.

A lot of the problem here is the "Tony Snow" effect. (If I can invoke anything at all to do with the Bush/FoxNews administration without seeming too insulting.)

When we here what Tony Snow, or Condelessa Rice, or currently employeed top military commanders have to say when the shit is hitting the fan, you can't really trust it. You just can't. Honesty -- even self-honesty -- isn't part of the job for them, right? Hyper attention to integrity is a good way of getting fired very quickly. You're not going to here Tony Snow say "oh, hell no, we're being totally unreasonable!" or Secretary Rice say, well, anything the adminstration doesn't tell her to. And while there have been plenty of top military brass complain up and down about strategies (or lack thereof) have been employed, that's generally AFTER they retire, yeah?

It's the same in any management group in any company, organization, or, well, any group were some select group is expected to run a larger one. We've all seen it over and over again.

And we're seeing it here. The facts aren't relevant -- support the team! All this bickering isn't helping -- support the team! Yes, but... support the team! And so on.

But blindly "supporting the team" is how bad stuff perpetuates. It's how bad management stays bad. It's how bad administrations stay bad.

As has been mentioned, openness is key. Even when that isn't practical, don't hide behind a curtain and expect eveyone to trust the Great and Powerful Oz when they reason they're trying to peek is because their trust has been shaken.

It's sad. It's not that I disagree with the general sentiment of the AA cheerleaders here, but hey -- we've got our eyes open and not eveyone is willing to shut them just to "support the team".

Bart

One last thing. Did you show Ellen your above post before posting it?

Correction: Before Dave posted it.

Mwahahaha....I love all the fighting going on here, it's so exciting, you never see this kind of thing in church ;)

.... you never get that kind of thing in church groups because the people in those groups are so smooshed by religion that they are happy with mundane details. So long as the herd is happy, Pastor McTitties has a stable income and the parasitic church meme can go on indefinantly. Hmmmm, churches are like brain-drain sinks whereas atheist organizations are like freethought-originating sources.

The town idiot wrote

I guess no one gets fired from AA...

. No need for me to comment.

My membership in A.A. came w/ my commitment to sponsor Viewpoint on local public access TV. My only goal was to break the religious monopoly there.

Since these shows are supposed to represent ME, I have not been shy to criticise. My email correspondence w/ Ellen has been an even-handed mix of admonishment and praise.

Bottom line - I'm not happy when someone in this organization causes me embarrassment. The actions of the Board w/ respect to this unceremonious firing of our public face is the act of just such a caffone(get an Italian dictionary and look it up).

How do you think this looks to an asshole like Bill Donohue? Bill O'Reilly? Glenn Beck?

The whitewash piece by Zindler has obviously fooled no one and now, thanks to all the bullshit, WE look like idiots just for being members.

If you had problems w/ Ellen, couldn't you have exercised some public decorum in dealing w/ her?

Tomorrow, I have to deliver the next two episodes of Viewpoint to the TV station. Thanks to the unprofessional conduct of this Board, I can no longer hold my head high for this task.

The Board was not looking at the big picture, here.

This is unfortunate. I'm not going to comment on actions I was in no position to observe, but it does seem to this member that this action came on rather suddenly.

Perhaps, it was unavoidable. When the president of any organization is at loggerheads with the majority of that organization's board of directors, then it's not hard to predict what the outcome will be.

Possibly board members and Ms. Johnson can reconsider their positions and achieve a reconciliation. Failing that, I hope the board will recognize Ellen's years of service on the front line in some meaningful fashion and that she will continue to be an ally to the organization she has served so ably all these years.

Ellen Johnson is my significant other. We have been together for almost six years now.

For the record, I was one of the board members that voted NOT to fire Ellen.

Conflict of interest, much??!!

To Jeanne and Gil Gaudia, who went ballistic on the Blog when I pointed out punctuation errors in American Atheists magazine:

Your anger reveals to me that you, probably as volunteer editors, are the ones responsible for the erroneous hanging periods in the magazine.

WELL, I KNEW IT WASN'T ELLEN.

For your information: check out Page 170 of The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage.

I have not enountered any "exceptions" to this rule in my 30 years of editing publications in New York City.

In any case, the erroneous hanging periods appeared far too often in the AA magazine to be "exceptions."
--------
Just out of curiousity, Gil and Jeanne, if my handle had been "Smartguy" instead of "Smartgal," would your response to me have been as vicious?
I wonder.

AA needs to work on getting rid of the rampant misogyny in its ranks.

Just out of curiousity, Gil and Jeanne, if my handle had been "Smartguy" instead of "Smartgal," would your response to me have been as vicious?
I wonder.

AA needs to work on getting rid of the rampant misogyny in its ranks.

Smartgal needs to stop playing the misogyny card all the time. Until you have any evidence, it only makes it look like you have an unrelated agenda to push and it adds nothing to the discussion.

For the record, I agree with you about the editing in the magazine, it has made me cringe fairly often.

Here's another word for the Board of Directors of AA: HEARTLESS.

I can put myself in Ellen Johnson's shoes when I think about the Freedom Walk: First the Board said Yes. Funds for the Freedom Walk were even solicited on this Blog (I know people who sent in money for it.)

Then the Board said, Well, maybe not. Then, Well, just don't use AA funds. And then, after being wishy washy all this time while Ellen made arrangements, the Board finally issued a No...But by that time, I think Ellen had committed herself to so many people, particularly to those old veterans who had tried to complete Bill Moore's walk 45 years ago, and their children, and it was an emotional committment... How could she reverse herself when the vacillating Board finally said No? I can see her being torn and then finally deciding to go with her heart.

And I can also identify with Ellen's perhaps wanting to do an Atheist kind of "memorial" for Madalyn Murray O'Hair, something that Madalyn would have appreciated, or something she would have done herself in her day. And I can identify with the sorrow that Ellen must have felt seven years ago when Madalyn's body was found, and I can even imagine tears washing down Ellen's face as she ran the Freedom route, and I can imagine Ellen thinking, This is for you, Madalyn, in expiation of all that the Board did not do 13 years ago.

Yes, I can identify with Ellen's sorrow and her grief and maybe her gut need to do something.. something that Madalyn would have done herself, or would have encouraged, as Madalyn had encouraged Bill Moore on his trek.

I listen to you Board members with your pompous talk of fiduciary liability and I think, bullshit, you are heartless, unimaginative, unempathetic wimps who wouldn't recognize a noble act if it slapped you in the face.

Yes, all the time Ellen was running in the South, I was thinking, "Run, Ellen, run." And I was thinking of Madalyn too, and her unmarked grave somewhere in the Southwest, and I knew Madalyn would have approved.

You did good, Ellen. You acted couragely. If you were defiant, it was because the situation called for defiance. Madalyn was often defiant.

Run, Ellen, run. Run away from those who don't understand, who don't cry, who don't feel the sorrow.

Here's another word for the Board of Directors of AA: HEARTLESS.

I can put myself in Ellen Johnson's shoes when I think about the Freedom Walk: First the Board said Yes. Funds for the Freedom Walk were even solicited on this Blog (I know people who sent in money for it.)

Then the Board said, Well, maybe not. Then, Well, just don't use AA funds. And then, after being wishy washy all this time while Ellen made arrangements, the Board finally issued a No...But by that time, I think Ellen had committed herself to so many people, particularly to those old veterans who had tried to complete Bill Moore's walk 45 years ago, and their children, and it was an emotional committment... How could she reverse herself when the vacillating Board finally said No? I can see her being torn and then finally deciding to go with her heart.

And I can also identify with Ellen's perhaps wanting to do an Atheist kind of "memorial" for Madalyn Murray O'Hair, something that Madalyn would have appreciated, or something she would have done herself in her day. And I can identify with the sorrow that Ellen must have felt seven years ago when Madalyn's body was found, and I can even imagine tears washing down Ellen's face as she ran the Freedom route, and I can imagine Ellen thinking, This is for you, Madalyn, in expiation of all that the Board did not do 13 years ago.

Yes, I can identify with Ellen's sorrow and her grief and maybe her gut need to do something.. something that Madalyn would have done herself, or would have encouraged, as Madalyn had encouraged Bill Moore on his trek.

I listen to you Board members with your pompous talk of fiduciary liability and I think, bullshit, you are heartless, unimaginative, unempathetic wimps who wouldn't recognize a noble act if it slapped you in the face.

Yes, all the time Ellen was running in the South, I was thinking, "Run, Ellen, run." And I was thinking of Madalyn too, and her unmarked grave somewhere in the Southwest, and I knew Madalyn would have approved.

You did good, Ellen. You acted couragely. If you were defiant, it was because the situation called for defiance. Madalyn was often defiant.

Run, Ellen, run. Run away from those who don't understand, who don't cry, who don't feel the sorrow.

Here's another word for the Board of Directors of AA: HEARTLESS.

I can put myself in Ellen Johnson's shoes when I think about the Freedom Walk: First the Board said Yes. Funds for the Freedom Walk were even solicited on this Blog (I know people who sent in money for it.)

Then the Board said, Well, maybe not. Then, Well, just don't use AA funds. And then, after being wishy washy all this time while Ellen made arrangements, the Board finally issued a No...But by that time, I think Ellen had committed herself to so many people, particularly to those old veterans who had tried to complete Bill Moore's walk 45 years ago, and their children, and it was an emotional committment... How could she reverse herself when the vacillating Board finally said No? I can see her being torn and then finally deciding to go with her heart.

And I can also identify with Ellen's perhaps wanting to do an Atheist kind of "memorial" for Madalyn Murray O'Hair, something that Madalyn would have appreciated, or something she would have done herself in her day. And I can identify with the sorrow that Ellen must have felt seven years ago when Madalyn's body was found, and I can even imagine tears washing down Ellen's face as she ran the Freedom route, and I can imagine Ellen thinking, This is for you, Madalyn, in expiation of all that the Board did not do 13 years ago.

Yes, I can identify with Ellen's sorrow and her grief and maybe her gut need to do something.. something that Madalyn would have done herself, or would have encouraged, as Madalyn had encouraged Bill Moore on his trek.

I listen to you Board members with your pompous talk of fiduciary liability and I think, bullshit, you are heartless, unimaginative, unempathetic wimps who wouldn't recognize a noble act if it slapped you in the face.

Yes, all the time Ellen was running in the South, I was thinking, "Run, Ellen, run." And I was thinking of Madalyn too, and her unmarked grave somewhere in the Southwest, and I knew Madalyn would have approved.

You did good, Ellen. You acted couragely. If you were defiant, it was because the situation called for defiance. Madalyn was often defiant.

Run, Ellen, run. Run away from those who don't understand, who don't cry, who don't feel the sorrow.

alatham said:
----------------
'Smartgal needs to stop playing the misogyny card all the time. Until you have any evidence, it only makes it look like you have an unrelated agenda to push and it'
----------
Smartgal replies:

You just don't get it, do you?

I'm the woman who posted on this blog that there were ONLY 7 WOMEN at our New York Pope Picket out of a total 75 picketers--or less than 10%. WHAT MORE EVIDENCE DO YOU NEED THAT WOMEN DO NOT FEEL WELCOME IN ATHEIST GROUPS?

And of course misogyny is a "related" topic: I'm one of the people who has accused the Board of misogyny in dealing with Ellen (corroborated by Arthur and others). Pay attention, alatham, and connect the dots.

And by the way, your not seeing the connections here is probably due to (drum roll) your unconscious misogyny. ;-)

Wow, how unprofessional to post all this crap on the blog. You guys need to get your shit together.

Smartgal needs to stop playing the misogyny card all the time. Until you have any evidence, it only makes it look like you have an unrelated agenda to push and it adds nothing to the discussion.

For the record, I agree with you about the editing in the magazine, it has made me cringe fairly often.

alatham,

How right you are (on both counts)!

WHAT MORE EVIDENCE DO YOU NEED THAT WOMEN DO NOT FEEL WELCOME IN ATHEIST GROUPS?

dumbgal,

I'll repeat myself here. You are a loon.

And being of the female persuasion, I don't have any (drum roll) misogyny, unconscious or otherwise.

smartgal,

WHAT MORE EVIDENCE DO YOU NEED THAT WOMEN DO NOT FEEL WELCOME IN ATHEIST GROUPS?

None. But you need a lot more evidence to start claiming that it's a result of misogyny rather than either a simple failure to reach out to women, or inherent disinterest amongst women.

Women have far more active battles to fight with society than mere atheism. In my limited experience, atheist activists tend to be white males (myself included). I consider that a commentary on the fact that white males don't have any other overriding social ills to battle. Women have enough on their plate (feminism, which I wholeheartedly support, though I have a feeling you won't care) without being atheist activists as well.

Don't attribute to malice that which you can attribute to laziness.

And of course misogyny is a "related" topic: I'm one of the people who has accused the Board of misogyny in dealing with Ellen (corroborated by Arthur and others). Pay attention, alatham, and connect the dots.

Simple accusations do not make your case without evidence. Show me some evidence and I will support you. Continue to scream "Persecution!" without any evidence and most of us will continue to ignore you.

And by the way, your not seeing the connections here is probably due to (drum roll) your unconscious misogyny. ;-)

I'll respond to this particular attack once I'm done beating my girlfriend. I'm kind of busy at the moment.

When president John McCain increases government subsidies to churches, mandates religion in public classrooms, bans the theory of evolution, posts the 10 commandments in every courthouse, post office, and police station in America, and declares us atheists to be the scum of the earth, some of you will still be completely wrapped up in your little flame wars.

Is there anyone left who is still focused on changing the world for the better?

Focus on what is important or fight your silly little flame wars on craigslist!

alatham,

Chris B is right.

I appreciate your sense of humor in dealing with a sensitive topic. I'm signing off now; don't want to deal with the Nazi butches butting in on this thread. 'Bye.

I guess Mr. Meltzer could use a proof-reader, "The biggest one is her refusal to accept the fact that the board had waken up after thirteen years of sleeping and was ready to start acting as a board."

"had waken up"? You meant "waked" or woken" I am sure. Or "awakened".

WHAT MORE EVIDENCE DO YOU NEED THAT WOMEN DO NOT FEEL WELCOME IN ATHEIST GROUPS?

I can't comment on the inner workings of AA, but I've never felt unwelcome in athiest groups/blogs etc. In fact I've felt that, overall, athiest men seem to be more enlightened about women's issues than the average "god-fearing" man. Perhaps because IMHO they're educated to the inherent mysogny in the Abrahamic religions, and they reject not only the religion, but it's anti-female doctrine (that has severly tainted humanity) as well.

Have any of you other gals felt unwelcome?

cry4turtles

Have any of you other gals felt unwelcome?

I've never felt unwelcome on this or any other atheist blog. I've not made it to any conventions, so I can't speak to the feeling of being with the group in person. There are no groups where I live, so, this virtual communication is pretty much the extent of my atheist outreach. Although I have recently discovered two other people I know who are humanists.

My feeling has been like yours, that atheist men are more enlightened, both about women's issues and about accepting women as equal partners in life. I personally doubt Ellen's situation with the board had anything to do with misogyny. I think smartgal is offbase with her allegations there.

My feeling has been like yours, that atheist men are more enlightened, both about women's issues and about accepting women as equal partners in life.

...and as an atheist man, I'd like to point out that we appreciate an enlightened woman who is accepting of a man as an equal partner in life and is enlightened about men's issues(we have them).

Unfortunately, you're a minority among atheists.

I've always had the opinion, and I've expressed it to Ellen, that her gender was her most valuable asset to her position. In the religious world, women are usually the driving force behind religious practice within the family. These ignorant stooges have too much authority over developing minds.

Who better than another woman to deliver the message, "Grow up"?

This current thread brings up a whole new topic here--misogyny in Atheist organizations--when this thread should really be about Ellen's dismissal and I don't want to dilute that topic.

I will say, though, there is probably less misogyny within the Atheist community than in religious communities (especially the notorious polygamous Mormons, who keep women as virtual baby-producing slaves)but, make no mistake, it is subtly here too.

I don't say this angrily or blamingly, just a bit sadly. It is hard to totally eradicate a mind-set and we may have to wait until the next generations, I think, to effect better acceptance of gender equality.

For one example of the subtlety of gender discrimination, let me cite the person who posted here on this blog that he felt--and told Ellen-- that her gender was her biggest asset as leader of AA. Tell me,sir, would you say that to Frank or Conrad? Would you go to Conrad and say, I think your best asset here as administrator is that you are a male?

I rest my case.

Smartgal

I don't see the misogyny on this blog or in connection with Ellen's firing. Matador's opinion about Ellen's gender as an "asset to her position" (or even her biggest asset) is not necessarily misogyny. I don't know whether his assessment is true or not but what if it is? I have always thought of her gender as being AN asset albeit not her greatest one.

I think I made it abundantly clear as to why I made that statement regarding gender.

Actually, I probably didn't call it her "biggest" asset when I told her that. I did note that I considered it advantageous.

Ellen understands that I'm quite sensitive as to how gender plays a role in communications - and how eliminating the gender gap can build bridges w/ other women. I doubt she took offense.

If you wish to keep harping on it, be my guest - you'll only come off as hyper-sensitive. It is an anthropological fact that the sexes think and communicate differently.

If that is misogyny, then it is also misandry.