All these special interest groups


Jaclyn Glenn has another video. In this one she’s replying to someone else’s video which is replying to her video berating people who said Elliot Rodger’s adventure in murder was motivated by misogyny. (Video to video to video. It’s so cumbersome. Why can’t they just type it all, as humans were meant to do?) She starts off with a sarcastic apology for saying Rodger’s adventure was caused solely by mental illness, then drops the sarcasm to say that’s not at all what she said. Huh. She certainly did say it was definitely not misogyny, it was mental illness. She said that with great emphasis and certitude. The bit where she says “there were also other factors” didn’t take up nearly as much time or get as much emphasis. She explains that.

I never said that mental illness was solely to blame, I said several times that there were other things that played a role, and the point of the video was simply to let people know that mental illness played a role, that it wasn’t just misogyny, because I was sick and tired of seeing all these special interest groups jumping in on a tragedy and trying to capitalize on it and trying to use it to further their specific agendas.

“Special interest groups” – that’s one of the dopiest (yet effective) catchphrases ever invented. It means “groups with interests that are opposed to my interests.” Glenn of course is here bashing feminism as a “special interest group” while attempting to exonerate noisy angry misogyny. It’s odd that she sees feminism as a “special interest group” but organized misogynists as just…I don’t know, part of nature, I guess. The Richard Dawkins Foundation, toe-curlingly, has a thing it calls Secular Stars. (Ew. Ew ew ew.) Jaclyn Glenn is at the top of the page, with a gushing blurb.

With her sharp wit and smashing sense of humor, Jaclyn Glenn has quickly become the new “it” girl in the atheist community. Her hit Youtube channel, she has rocketed passed [sic] 100,000 subscriptions in no time flat and millions have been entertained by her quirky view of the world.

Oh, gawd.

Comments

  1. says

    Yep, more dishonest bullshit language games from the same pro-sexism crowd. Their incoherent rage and stalking in the name of bigotry is “skeptical, rational, thoughtful” and you not putting up with it is “rageblogging”. Women not wanting to be treated horribly is a “special interest” while atheist park benches and rambling YouTube videos are “necessary activism”.

    And of course there are women who play along, when they get lots of positive attention from VERY IMPORTANT THINKY-LEADERS for saying the dumbest, most bigotry-supporting nonsense.

  2. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    Because Jaclyn Glenn totes doesn’t have an agenda because agendas are bad things to have because reasons.

  3. tonyinbatavia says

    Ophelia, I loved that you pointed out how she likely views noisy angry misogyny as a part of nature. It certainly seems in line with how Our Great and Wondrous Thought Leaders view it.

  4. mesh says

    The last bit is particularly revealing when you consider the frequent charges of attention-whoring for blog hits; you don’t become popular by fighting the status quo, you become popular by promoting it. If such trends are any indication the way to get hits is to rage about the castration agenda of the feminazis, blame everything except attitudes towards women for their treatment in any given circumstance, and laugh at people who receive rape threats. If someone’s a feminist just for the attention they’re doing it horribly, horribly wrong.

  5. leni says

    Did she explain that stupid remark about how there’s no “rule code book” thingy for misogynists?

    I would just listen to it. But then I would have to listen to it.

  6. Jackie the wacky says

    Careful Jaclyn,
    Say the wrong thing just once and Dawkins will add you to the blacklist with the other women who step out of line and question him.

  7. Shatterface says

    …because I was sick and tired of seeing all these special interest groups jumping in on a tragedy and trying to capitalize on it and trying to use it to further their specific agendas.

    There is, of course, no agenda against the mentally ill.

  8. funknjunk says

    Yup. “It Girl” … ugh. Gawd, but that’s irritating. I didn’t know the Atheist community had those… i thought that was a made-up TV and Radio industry term for all the stuff that I hate in one convenient place …. thanks for the time-saver, Dawkins ….

  9. funknjunk says

    hmmm, my comment doesn’t read well. I don’t hate “it Girls” themelsves … it’s the industry around their artificial production, cultivation and exploitation, etc.etc. And I didn’t realize the atheist community had them … would be .. my … point … yes.

  10. Anthony K says

    But she is an ‘it girl’. Why, just look at that dame–she’s like a tall drink of water with gams that just won’t quit . I’m tellin’ ya, she oughta be in pictures. While we’re on the subject of talkies, whaddaya think of that Hitler fella that’s burning up the newsreels? I think he’s all wet. The only place for a crumb like that is the hoosegow, or better yet a meat wagon. Now what say we put on a platter and have ourselves a real ring-a-ding-ding?

  11. karmacat says

    Don’t atheists pride themselves for skeptical thinking? All she is doing is spouting opinions. I assume she doesn’t have any expert knowledge about mental illness. Because mental health, mental illness is more complex than people realize

  12. Pierce R. Butler says

    A woman who makes an opinion video with a bed as a backdrop has clearly transcended all sex-related issues.

  13. says

    I know, right? “It girl” – as the hepcats of today call them. The whole blurb is just fiery-embarrassing. “Smashing sense of humor” “in no time flat” – WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE.

    I hope her hatred of feminism isn’t the only reason Dawkins declared her a [shudder] “secular star.”

  14. Anthony K says

    And of course, as atheists only comprise ~2% of the global population, is ‘special interest group’ the kind of term vocal atheists want to be tossing about as a pejorative?

  15. Julia F says

    “It” is actually charisma and confidence though it is sometimes assumed to be sex appeal. The term was popularized by Elinor Glyn, the novelist and screenwriter. The first “It Girl” was Clara Bow.

  16. says

    I think I received a newsletter from American Atheists earlier this year that also claimed her as a rising star…so it’s not just Dawkins. :(

  17. says

    I was going to point out that their terminology is like 60 – 70 years out of date, but Anthony stole my thunder.

    Well stolen, old fellow.

  18. says

    mesh/#4:

    If someone’s a feminist just for the attention they’re doing it horribly, horribly wrong.

    Well, they are just saying ‘attention’, not so much specifying which sort…

    And there are, after all, the rape threats, the death threats, the being called a cunt, a bitch, and so on, the occasional having pictures of your home posted on sites for the unhinged… If you make it big, and you’re really lucky–say, you organize a successful hashtag like #NotAllWomen, or do a solid piece on images of women in video games, or suggest a progressive direction for online and organized atheism–and thereby manage to get yourself on the radar of one or more of the more obsessive hate groups, maybe you can even get all of these at once, by the hundreds or thousands, generated by your own distributed brigade of systematic harassers, who may keep at it for months on end…

    It’s much like having an entourage, really… But, you know… the kind that follows you everywhere and hisses vicious threats at you at random. All the ‘attention’, indeed, that your health–and various insurance policies–can take.

    (/I mean, who wouldn’t just jump at the chance? Hoo, boy, dreaming of the limelight, here…)

  19. says

    Leo @ 18 – “a rising star”? Really? That was the wording?

    Ugh. I’m way too nerdy for all this celebrity culture, video-based, rising star bullshit. I like writing and reading. I’m not interested in “stars.”

  20. WWWWWW says

    People that think youtube is a place for valuable discourse should be imprisoned in a library for a few years.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *