Constructive feedback for AAWA leadership (IMHO)

by besty 141 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Vidiot

  Regardless of the involuntary membership additions and/or outages (a mistake that I'm sure GB2.0 - assuming they've kept an eye on this - are feeling rather smug about), and overall concerns about the "Anti" aspect of the name (concerns which, to a degree, I share), has anyone here nontheless considered another possibility?

  Like it or not, the attempt - successful or otherwise - to create a more unified front of "Anti-WT Activists" is almost certain to provoke a reaction from GB2.0; shriller and even less rational anti-"apostate" rhetoric, tightening of the rules for the R&F, further entrenchment of their flawed policies, etc...

  From what I've seen so far, all that seems to really accomplish is to wake up even more concious-classers, and trigger even more fades and DAs.

  Whether the "double-A-double-you-A" actually succeeds in its goals or not, I'd be very surprised if the overall effect didn't at least thin the ranks further.

  Many here would consider that a good thing.
• 

  soft+gentle

  I hope that AAWA can look back at this situation as a trial run. I'm glad they are taking feedback on board (as Tylinbrando has said). Personally I would like to see this venture succeed even if the main outcome is that it enables people to feel that they are accomplishing something constructive with their energies.

  somebody else, Brinjen I think, made an excellent suggestion, that rather than using facebook, AAWA could start their own discussion forum. This could be a place to thrash out thorny issues and discuss how best to raise awareness re watchtower abuses in a more radical way than at present.

  I hope AAWA are considering a name change. I think JWactivists is a great name. Or even Action Against Watchtower Abuses
• 

  Ilovebirthdays

  I was thinking about this, and it led me to wonder what is the uniting factor that we're all here on this board, and the only uniting factor I could come up with is the fact that we're all here on this board. We're made up of ex-JWs of many different lengths, JWs in various stages of fading, never-been JWs, JW apologists and who knows what else. Some of us are here because we need help or advice, some are here to give advice, some are random interlopers, and some are here to promote pro-JW beliefs. This site works, and has been around for such a relatively long amount of time, because it doesn't matter who you are or why you're here, its fine that you're here, and there isn't a "if you're not with me, you're against me" attitude and you don't have to follow the general consensus to stay.

  Has there ever been (and I'm genuinely curious, since I'm not regularly here) a group that has caused so much division and infighting in such a short period of time on this board? I don't think name-calling and infighting from the get go shows that this group is off to a very good start. I know that Six Screens guy caused a lot of trouble, but that was over a period of time, and he is a lone entity. There are going to be disagreements and clashes of personalities on here. That's human nature, but getting a bunch of ex-JWs arguing against each other goes squarely against any group that claims to be Anti-Watchtower, I would think. Seriously, please re-think the name and the tone. If there were a group to pop up called AAAWA (Association of Anti-Anti-Watchtower Activists), how effective do you think that they would be here?

  I think what people have to remember is that you're not just fighting a religion, you're fighting a multi-billion dollar corporation. People do that all the time, and there are many groups out there that have been around longer and have much more manpower, and they haven't done much. (Ever heard of Millions against Monsanto or the Nestle boycott? Your average person probably hasn't, and these corporations are still around, and while they may have been hurt on a small level, they're still thriving.) If you want to try to be the David to take down Goliath, go ahead, and good luck, I'm on your side. I'm just not going to put my time and energy and $$ into an effort for that, as the WT already claimed the 1st 25 years of my life, and, for me, I can't fight against them too long, or I get bitter and lose the good place I've managed to find for myself. I may not be blatant, but I do what I can. What I can do is, when appropriate, tell my story and the story of others who have been shunned to people I know when it is the right time to do so. Have I accomplished much? No, all I've done, that I know of, is get someone to stop taking the magazines from a JW because she was to polite to say no (I highly doubt I saved her from becoming one), and when they came this year on their Memorial blitz, they didn't get a very friendly reception from quite a few houses in the neighborhood. It may not be much, but it is what I can do to keep a healthy balance in my life.
• 

  Witness My Fury

  I think a lot of ex JWs fall into the pitfall of overplaying the GBs interest level in them.

  I'm willing to bet the GB rarely discusses anything apostates are doing or saying and are more than likely completely unaware of the AAWA launch and subsequent developements. Sure some lackies may well be assigned to monitor what is going on but even that is a risky strategy (as they could turn) and is more likely just done on an ad hoc basis if at all.
• 

  EdenOne

  Borges: You can't access them without wondering if you have to be anti-watchtower to do so. Thats very sad and harmfull to the matter, which is on hand helping people and on the other exposing the wt.

  You pretty much nailed what I felt it was wrong with the AAWA for me, personally.

  I'm not anti-watchtower, as is common knowledge here. I disagree with a fair amount of doctrinal and practice aspects, I abhor the historic revisionism, and I agree that not a small number of people do get damaged by the religious group I'm a member of. I'm still considering the implications of staying or leaving but for the time being I'm in.

  So, when I got notice of AAWA I asked myself: Do I really want to be a part of a group whose paramount purpose is to actively oppose the Watchtower Society? Do they clearly differentiate who their activism is supposed to target - the Jehovah's Witnesses as a people or solely the corporation known as the Watchtower Society or more specifically its leadership, the Governing Body? Since it was "No" to both questions, I felt I couldn't be part of it. I was automatically alienated.

  Eden
• 

  slimboyfat

  I think a lot of ex JWs fall into the pitfall of overplaying the GBs interest level in them.

  I'm willing to bet the GB rarely discusses anything apostates are doing or saying and are more than likely completely unaware of the AAWA launch and subsequent developements. Sure some lackies may well be assigned to monitor what is going on but even that is a risky strategy (as they could turn) and is more likely just done on an ad hoc basis if at all.

  Generally I agree, but they may have heard about AAWA or taken an interest purely because Barbara Anderson was involved. They perhaps keep some sort of eye on what she's up to because she used to be one of their own, and she's an effective campaigner with an interest in Watchtower history to boot.

  Personally I think some sort of loose organizational structure for former and reforming JWs would be excellent. But under Cedars' leadership? Well people can change I suppose, but it is hard to imagine it working with him acting as arrogantly as he has been. Whoever leads such an initiative would have to be much more laid back and comfortable with other people having their own opinions, doing their own thing, and coming together as and when they feel they can do so constructively.
• 

  wha happened?

  Anti Watchtower to me means everything, and anything they do is fair game to go after. I think of it more like, anti illegal activities on the part of the WT, or anti harmful behavior to it's own mwmbers. To catagorically state that "an organization has to go," sounds just crazy. And that's what you attract.

  We all remember what some of the crazies have done in the past. They put it on youtube. It looks terrible, and sounds more like a cult than the cult they are complaining about.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Don't forget someone suggested WARN - Watchtower Abuse Recovery Network - excellent acronym in my view.
• 

  Simon

  A big risk for any activist group is that they can be taken over and lead into extremism if they are not very careful how they act and what actions they are willing to tollerate.

  Right now, we've seem people going too far in their actions (whether you call it "over enthusiasm" or not) but the AAWA have refused to pull back from what they have done and allowed them to not only stay but it seems, be given more control and authority within the group. The dangerous message that sends to all the whack-o fringe is that here is an organization who will act as enablers to allow you to pull off silly stunts that put people at risk and provide an audience of cheerleaders to egg you on.

  It's dangerous and I hope the AAWA don't sleep-walk into becoming a support group for the entirely the wrong people.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “A big risk for any activist group is that they can be taken over and lead into extremism if they are not very careful how they act and what actions they are willing to tollerate.”

  Simon,

  You could not be more right about that. It’s one reason why I always recommend against inclusion of “anti” in a name. Like it or not, it tends to draw extremists. If that’s what you’re looking for, fine. But if not, then something else is in order. In this case I happened to learn of the AAWA name in casual conversation not too long before the rollout, and as always I recommended “anti” be avoided, and “activists” too for that matter.

  “Right now, we've seem people going too far in their actions (whether you call it "over enthusiasm" or not) but the AAWA have refused to pull back from what they have done and allowed them to not only stay but it seems, be given more control and authority within the group.”

  I’m not sure what this refers to. One way or another I’ve been in touch with AAWA founders since before its birth, and since. I haven’t hesitated to ask what’s going on and why. My impression is just the opposite of what you write above. Any consolidation of authority inside the group arose from the unexpected but understandable absence of Barbara. I’m not sure if they’ve filled her shoes yet or not. I haven’t asked. But I do know AAWA’s top leadership has responded well to me when I made contact with questions and concerns. That they don’t always agree with me is no surprise, and I would not expect them to either.

  Marvin Shilmer