Originally a comment by Tom Foss on Credit where it’s due.
This JG kerfuffle, is, though, inconsequential bullshit as far as I can see.
The atheist and skeptical communities have made their names on calling out and arguing against bad arguments and strawmen. Why would we stop when those bad arguments and strawmen are coming from someone who claims to be part of the community? Why wouldn’t we argue even harder, to demonstrate what we so frequently see lacking in religious communities, namely a willingness to police their own? If atheists being irrational and behaving badly is inconsequential bullshit to other atheists, then why is it suddenly consequential when religionists do the same?
It’s true, Jaclyn Glenn is not the source of all the misogyny and antifeminism (and ableism) in the community, she’s just a source of some of it. And she’s a prime example of how saying antifeminist things seems to be the path to YouTube stardom for atheists and skeptics, just as saying feminist things is the path to abuse and harassment. Seems like Dawkins and American Atheists only started promoting her once she started saying antifeminist things, and they certainly haven’t withdrawn their support because she opposes feminists. That sends a message, intended or not, to women in this community, that feminist concerns are not a priority for atheist movement leaders. Moreover, since I don’t see the RDF or AA promoting Rebecca Watson or Laci Green or other feminist atheist YouTubers, it sends the message that’s been clearly sent since the post-elevatorgate TAM, that feminists are not welcome or wanted in this community.
I just don’t see that the source of all those problems is Richard Dawkins or Dusty or JG. In fact, I suspect that all of them would totally agree with you.
Yes, on a lot of issues, I suspect they would nominally agree. Dawkins has adopted the feminist label in the past, and spent some time in The God Delusion talking about feminist consciousness-raising, and using it as a model for an atheist version of the same. But Dawkins’ idea of feminism seems to be one where western women’s biggest problems were solved when we stopped saying “fireman” and “chairman” and started saying “firefighter” and “chairperson.” Now, as long as there are Muslimas in the world, dealing with forced marriage and genital mutilation and virginity tests, western women have no business complaining about sexism or working to correct privilege in their cultures. It ties into a whole host of other issues Dawkins has with racism and Islamophobia (for lack of a better term).
But Dawkins is someone that much of the community recognizes as a leader, so when he attacks feminists and promotes antifeminist rants, his fans take that as license to do the same. Dawkins has a lot more reach and influence than Jaclyn Glenn, but JG wouldn’t have nearly as much reach and influence if not for the Dawkins seal of approval.
Sorry, tangent again. Point being that Dawkins may well say he agrees with equality between sexes, but his idea of what that means does not bear much resemblance to my idea, or the ideas of most feminists. Think, for example, about conservative Christians who say they believe in equality but not gay marriage, since gay people already have the same rights as everyone else to marry someone of the opposite gender. If you just asked those people “how do you feel about equality,” or even, “how do you feel about equality for gay people?” you’d get an affirmative response. And yet, that’s an attitude that needs fighting against, because even though both sides of the gay marriage issue profess belief in and agreement with equality, their ideas of equality are opposed.
Similarly, Jaclyn Glenn would probably say that she agrees with the idea that men and women should be equal, but her idea of equality still allows people to use gendered insults that suggest women’s bodies are gross and inferior. It allows her to call disgusting misogynists like TJ Kincaid friends and feminists like Ophelia opponents. That’s not the gender equality that feminism fights for, it’s the social oppression they fight against.
As for the rifts, they exist. No one is ginning up new unnecessary rifts, we’re just mapping out where they are. And when you align yourself with thoroughly disgusting assholes like The Amazing Atheist, well, we recognize pretty quickly what side of the rift you’re on.
Well said!
One quibble.
I don’t know about other people, but I don’t expect everyone in atheism to share my priorities.
It’s a big world and there are no end to the problems in it. All we can do is pick the things that are important to us and that we have some capacity to change (or at least hope we can) and feel passionate about.
The bigfoot people could be aiming higher, but so what. So could I. So could Dawkins. Good for the bigfoot debunkers, they’re doing something I wouldn’t bother to. And in Dawkins’ case, something I have neither the expertise nor patience for. Could I Dear Muslima them both simultaneously in one sentence? Yes. Yes I could. Anyone could. Maybe even one word.
But I don’t, because I understand that other people have expertise and priorities and passions that I don’t and I appreciate that.
It’s the fact that people find it so easy to shit on feminism with Chick Tract level competence that bothers me, not that they don’t share my priorities.
… Jaclyn Glenn is … just a source of some of it.
A source, or an echo?
Has Glenn ever said anything (positive or negative) original?
I’ve been following this blog since 2009. I used to share articles from it with my Psych of Women prof as it resonated well with the content of our class and what I felt was right. Post university I still follow because of the content and the writing.
Today I unsubscribe.
Guest post or not, this “let’s target JG” stuff is too much. Policing your own? Really? Because she identifies as an atheist, feminist / anti-feminist? No, I don’t buy it. This comes off as someone defending an ideology because someone completely inconsequential threatened it. Because honestly, shouldn’t we be talking about the more important things referenced, like FGM, etc. instead of some girl on YouTube?
This whole angle of “anything…original” bothers me. Not everyone has the skills to add something original to a long existing debate (atheism, feminism, “deep rifts” (except more rift building). I have no issues with JC, as of yet, adding anything original. She has, from my prior reading, provided derivative works expressed in a different format for a different target audience (this justification excludes her most recent paradoy YT video). It strikes me as ‘elitist’ (as in, “I have provided original content, so you may not have a voice until you contribute something original”).
Of course, we are talking in general, and I understand that “anything….original” can mean that the commentator has added knowledge to the exisitng topic indicating competency on the topic. Thus, my commemt about ‘bothers me’. Using “anything….original” with a broad brush sounds like an attempt to silence.
I do not intend to call out Pierce R. Butler on my response. I have read the similiar responses from others on other threads, and I have only been able to articulate my concern with the phrase. Her target audience is a different audience than a blog audience. She is, in my belief on reading other criticisms, using existing material in order to address a younger (?) audience, or a broader audience that are more comfortable with or familiar in a visual medium.
Of course, none of my above concerns apply to her horrid video (s) that reek of ‘arrogance of ignorance’ on feminist /social justice / atheism+ topics. Hopefully, she will research, learn, and apply any knowledge gained on the aforementioned topics and provide more insightful videos that add value to the conversations. Hopefully?
I can agree that feminism doesn’t need to be a priority, but it does need to figure into their thinking the same way I expect other humanist positions to. I am not an activist, and I’m barely a commenter, but I have read all these discussions since “elevatorgate” brought these attitudes out in public. What has become very clear to me is that
there is no space for people like me for whom atheism is only one part of social justice. It has also pretty much ensured that I stayed out of the blogosphere as a woman.
I guess the positive side is that the knee-jerk reaction by anti-feminist brigade just makes sure their views stay out in the open. It’s that polarization that bothers me most because that makes people like JG, who might otherwise show some growth on the issue as they learn more, more likely to become further entrenched in these ideas.
I don’t see much that can be done about it though.
Maybe I am nuts, maybe I am just looking at things oddly, but it doesn’t look to me like the problem is these various people not making feminism a priority.
If, for example, Richard Dawkins didn’t want to prioritise feminism, he could have just ignored it completely and he wouldn’t be getting criticised for it.
Instead with Dear Muslima, he acted in opposition to it.
The same goes for JG, it isn’t that she doesn’t address feminism, it is that she actively opposes it.
When you take the time to bash those who do, when you take the time to accuse them of being divisive for trying to solve their issues with say sexual harassment within the movement, when you take that time it is something quite different to not making feminism a priority.
@Mike S: you forgot to start that comment with “Dear Muslima.”
@7: He’s been here for
secondsyears.@4: Seriously? You seek out unoriginal material? Retreads of tired arguments?
Do you sit at home and watch Andy Griffith Show reruns all day, too? That Barney sure is a hoot, isn’t he?
Well, quite. I’ve rarely seen it put so well.
There’s some straw littered about in the comments, though. Nobody expects all atheists to share all their priorities. But some of us expect that we should *have* priorities. That our atheism gives us no excuses to not try to be better than those who rely on dogma instead of reason.
And if treating everyone equally isn’t a priority, what the roaring fuck is?
For reasons of not paying attention I commented as robsmith rather than latsot (comment currently awaiting moderation). We are one and the same. So, well, that’s what we both said.
If the comment turns up, it’s from me. If it doesn’t, it’s probably from some idiot.
Oh it’s there. So it’s me. Sorry for logging in wrong.
QFT.
@9: ever stop and think that “The Andy Griffith Show” is not a rerun to a millennial? For them, the Andy Griffith Show is new and unique. The parralllel is that JC may, in her oen words, is repackaging old material in a new format that targets a newer demographic.
Again, I am not using this as justification in defending her in her recent videos, but saying she does “nothing original” is an attempt to silence her in other non-social justice videos. So, thanks for illustrating my point.
No, that’s not what Donnie (@4) was saying at all. S/he is making the same point that I’ve tried (unsuccessfully, I can only assume) to make in other JG threads here over the past week or so, to wit that while there is plenty to criticize in the content and presentation of JG’s videos, the ‘unoriginality’ of her atheism and deconversion topics is one that strikes me as too harsh. Of course it is unoriginal to those of us who’ve been in the game for a while, but to newcomers who have gone through the same deconversion process as JG has more recently, for young people who grew up with YouTube and apparently find that medium more accessible than books, articles, or long TED talks, there is a niche.
Do I wish that she hadn’t chosen to adulterate her message with offensive straw-feminists, or that she presumes to understand deep rifts that have festered (it would seem) since long before she even identified as an atheist? Absofuckinglutely. But requiring original content before anyone can participate seems like a bar that very few people would be able to meet, and has the net effect of silencing new voices who might just want to share an enlightenment that is new and original to them, even though it is a path that many others have walked before.
No, that’s completely backward. Do you sit home and read Bertrand Russell all day? That teapot thing sure is a hoot, isn’t it?
To your point about derivative ideas, though, I quite enjoyed ‘The Flinstones’ as a child, never realizing until years later that the characters were based on an iconic older show, ‘The Honeymooners’, that had begun and ended before I was even born.
reconversion = deconversion. Stupid autocorrect.
Sorry about the cross-post, Donnie.
On the whole original content thing:
Yeah, I think a lot of atheists DO seek out unoriginal content. They really enjoy being a choir, and having someone preach to them. Maybe they haven’t given up as much religious thinking as they claim…
I find a number of things TAA says to be disgusting, but I wouldn’t discredit someone for associating with him. They can support him for the valid things he says.
But plenty of other people say those things without the added misogyny. Where do you draw the line on how bad someone’s words and actions have to be before they overwhelm whatever valid points he or she might have?
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2014/07/25/is-there-any-line-you-think-should-not-be-crossed/
Originality is difficult when we’re talking about atheism. So many religious arguments can be debunked with rebuttals that predate Christianity, and there’s only so many ways to spin the latest news article about some church-state separation violation. The only real way to keep things somewhat fresh is to bring in stuff that’s only tangentially related, like philosophical or social or scientific issues.
My problem with Glenn isn’t the lack of originality (though plagiarism is kind of an extreme version of that), it’s the laziness. There’s no effort involved in parroting the usual straw-feminist caricatures, no risk in blaming mental illness for mass murder and dismissing the misogyny aspect. I first heard about her when she did a rebuttal to Ray Comfort, who is kind of the lowest of low-hanging fruit. I see she also has a video about VenomFangX, so there’s that.
I’ve rewatched that Comfort video, and the laziness is apparent there, too. Rather than actually look up how agnosticism and atheism differ, she concedes that “agnostic” is the more accurate label. Rather than look up any information about evolution to respond to a quote-mine, she posts a pair of dismissive tweets by Richard Dawkins and says “the transition from apes to humans is probably something that took around five to six million years.” Her argumentation style is mostly just repeating what her opponents say with funny voices, and giving the glibbest possible responses–responses that in several cases aren’t really responses at all (pointing out Levitican law isn’t really a response to ‘the Bible is the only source for morality’, for instance).
I acknowledge your valid criticisms, Tom Foss. The fact that they are specific and detailed distinguish them from the sort of blanket dismissal that I am so down on.
@jenBPhillips: I can sympathize to some degree with the “originality” complaint, but it falls apart when you think about most of the content on atheist topics.
What grinds my gears is the critique that JG is popular because she’s pretty. It may well be (somewhat) true, but the evidence suggests that no matter how pretty she is, the anti-feminists would find something superficially objectionable about her appearance/voice/intelligence if she ever started taking pro-feminist positions. Laci Green’s certainly no less attractive than Glenn, and she gets plenty of looks-based insults.
I’m sure none of us liked it when people said that the only reason Jen McCreight was popular (for example; there are others) was her bust size; it’s no less problematic when the target is an opponent.
Jack Stone:
Do you have a line? What does someone have to say, what opinions do they have to espouse, before someone teaming up with them gives you pause? As an extreme example, would you be bothered by someone you respect associating with Ray Comfort, or using their praise as a badge of honor? But I want to know your lower limit.
Jack Stone:
I can find some agreeable things in a statement on poverty from the Catholic Church, but I find the great majority of their positions on other topics to be deplorable. If someone points me to a thoughtful message from the Pope on social injustices borne by the poor, should I ignore everything else I think of the organization? Can I not question my friend’s choice of the church as a source of information and ideas on one topic when we both have equal access to the church’s ideas on other issues?
You and I can both find a number of things the TAA says to be disgusting, and I would strongly question anyone who looks to him as a useful source of anything but examples of humanity being horrible.
Tessa
I’d base it on the reasons they give for their relationship with Ray Comfort. I doubt they are likely to get me to respect it, but I wouldn’t shut them out the moment they mention it.
People are multidimentional. Why should their worth as a human being begin and end with the worst or best parts of them?
skasowitz:
There’s reason to evalute ideas based on the source, but we can gain by taking stuff on a case by case basis.
Well it depends what that worst is, doesn’t it.
Also it depends on what’s at stake. People’s worth as a human being doesn’t begin and end with the worst or best parts of them, but that’s not the only issue. Refusing to promote the work of someone who does bad things needn’t mean condemnation or rejection of the person; it can mean just refusal to encourage the bad things the person does.
This is the same thing I keep trying to explain to people who ask why I didn’t “reach out” to Jaclyn Glenn. It’s not personal, it’s not about the person, it’s about the work, the video, the actions.
Jack Stone:
Who said shutting them out the moment they mentioned it? But just a known association. Or maybe they went into a joint tshirt venture with SCIENCE! logos. Would that bother you? I mean, they must think Ray Comfort is all for SCIENCE! right? And we’re not talking about their worth as a human, but your personal respect and support of their actions. Would those actions bother you?
Like the Amazing Atheist, even if he has awesome videos on atheism (I didn’t find the ones I’ve seen to be, but YMMV), do you want someone who tells a person that the guy who raped her deserves a medal for doing it representing the atheist community? Or tells another person that if she’d rejected him for his penis size, he’d break her nose and rape her? To me, that kind of attitude towards women outweighs anything he could say on atheism. I can hear and read equal or better atheisting from other people.
You cannot simply only focus on the positive of a person’s actions and ignore the bad. As you said, people are multidimensional, so you have to look at all of it and determine which is more important to you. And I’d like my atheism without rampant misogyny.
And if someone, also in the atheist community endorses him, or goes into a tshirt venture with him, it makes me question them as well. And I would rather not support someone with those priorities. I’m not wishing for them to die. I don’t think they are worthless people. I am just not interested in giving my support, because I don’t think it’s a great representation of the atheist community.
@jenBPhollips: no.worries. you expressed my concerns.better than myself.
@Tom Foss: agreed also. Those are valid criticisms that are worth a response from JG or her supporters.
@Ophelia: I do agree, if that matters, that you have no.responsibility or obligation to reach out to JG. Now, if JG was really interested in bridge building the deep rifts she has an ethical responsibility to reach out to her. She should.discuss her message and your objections directly with you. It’s what Surly Amy did with ???? (SkepDoc) during their rift. Amy explained and SkepDoc agreed for SkepDoc did not realize the history and background regarding “SkepChick”. Credit to Surly Amy for reaching out though she was under no obligation.
It’s in JG’s court to reach out direct to Ophelia, ignore the valid criticsms, or respond via another video ensuring continued drama. How JG responds will determine help determine how much value that I give her voice going forward in the slept – atheist – humanist – social justice movement.
Donnie @ # 14: … saying she does “nothing original” is an attempt to silence her …
Your comments in general seem thoughtful, but here you’re reading me (& my deplorable ilk) wrong.
To me, the implication of my question as to whether she’d said anything original concerns whether she contributes anything worth considering. Especially in a debate this long and irresolvable, has any scoffer or believer send anything game-changing for centuries? Neither, e.g., Christopher Hitchens nor G.K. Chesterton said anything absolutely NEW, but they did put words together in thought-provoking ways.
I can buy that translating current concepts into YouTubese is, like, cool and stuff, plus inevitable too. I skip nearly all of that because I have rather narrow broadband, and don’t like videos or TV in the first place (yay, the written word!). However, what little I’ve seen of, say, Rebecca Watson impressed me as part of an intelligent conversation.
So far nobody seems to have spoken up for Glenn as contributing anything even at the level of a mediocre blogger. If she’s offered any bons mots, nobody’s found them quotable in the 4 or 5 takedowns of JG I’ve read so far at FtB.
In a sense, categorizing somebody as “not worth your time” may, in actual consequence, play a part in them eventually going silent. I see that as daily life and necessary quality control in our fecund marketplace of ideas, but must concede you may have a point.
@Pierce R. Butler: Thank you for the response. I do not want to extend this comment thread unless others wish. Your comment, in and of itself, was neither abusive nor condensed in towards JG. As jenBPhillips said more eloquently than me that applying a broad brush of ‘unoriginal’ is a form of silencing. As Tom Foss, and yourself subsequently posted, her style and presentation are questionable (my paraphrase and apologize if I put words in both your mouths).
My thought is that “unoriginality” is being used as short hand for ye valid critiques you and Tom Foss are describing. My point (and jenBPhillips, if I can speak for him/her) is attempting to stop future short cuts of ‘unoriginal’ as a way of silencing.
Both your criticism are valid, in my opinion. I hope she evolves her presentation style. If not, she is one less voice that I need to bother to listen too.
Donnie @ # 14: … repackaging old material in a new format that targets a newer demographic.
I won’t go looking for it, but have no doubt that Generation Youtube is in process of doing that almost everywhere. JG has found ways of standing out from however many millions of v-loggers, but I betcha many other “repackagers” are out there making smarter, artier vids and getting orders of magnitude fewer clicks.
Glenn succeeds by looks and provocation, and a fanbase looking more for entertainment than education. Should we mourn that the kidz these days are wasting their minds with such fooleries, or rejoice that the young-atheist “demographic” has grown to a size that attracts wannabe Web stars?
JG’s surely figured out by now that her ratings rise and fall with pleasing her buds, and few of them tune in to hear David Hume expressed in fluent Mallistanese. I have a sneaking suspicion that the venerable tradition of badmouthing earlier generations still resonates with Kidz Theze Daze, but a HotChick™ saying “Pussy” really brings in the eyeballs.
Heads up, Jaclyn – the competition in that arena knows very few limits, and nobody who wins there lasts for long. Try to develop a style of quick patter, polish your lighting/cam/audio skills a bit, maybe some voice lessons – you might have to hire yourself an agent!
Oops, knew I should’ve refreshed before posting.
I think we’re basically on the same wavelength, Donnie. But I’m on it on the east coast, so must now turn into a pumpkin.
@ 3 Mike S
Ophelia! You need to abandon all this feminism stuff! You just lost Mike S as a reader! Quickly, recant before it’s too late!
Tessa @28
Well maybe. But I don’t see a problem with their logic T-Shirts. If they use motivated reasoning they are like everyone else. I have yet to see any assault on logic by Jaclyn. The others don’t stand out as especially irrational.
You see I am not convinced that his behavior in certain cases always brings down the quality of his content. I don’t believe in hating anyone at all.
I might be unconsciously less likely to check out his videos because he’s acted disgusting, but I think I can reject any bad point he makes if need be. Anyway, I not a fan, but I think he often has something to say.
I not sure Jaclyn is even aware of the worst of his comments. It’s not like he publicized them on his channel. The worst he does in his videos might be forgiven by others for being in the heat of the moment.
Jack Stone:
I don’t find misogyny to be especially rational (specifically regarding the TAA, I don’t know much about Cult of Dusty).
Now you escalate it to hate. Who said hate? First “worth as a human being”, now “hate.” I’m really curious what’s going on there.
Just unconsciously? But how bad does he have to get before his “something to say” is weighed down by all the crap? OK. Let’s say a restaurant owner said publicly that she thought all atheists should be put in prison. Her restaruant had great burgers or whatever food you like. Now her stance on your imprisonment doesn’t make her food taste less amazing. Would that affect your support of her restraraunt?
Well, if she teams up with someone, she should be conscious of who they are and what they say.
Tessa @36
Well, TAA mentioned this and the incidents recently:
At 38:30.
So I guess TAA made your case for you. It seems pretty pathetic that he can just say it came from a stupid place and dismiss the whole thing. Jaclyn was part of the skype discussion. To be realistic though I don’t expect most people to turn on their friends when they say make the talking points they agree with. I just hope such behavior is reduced in the long run because of its weakness. I mean I imagine that even if Jaclyn agreed with what TAA said about Feminism, she might feel less confident about it given how spurious his response was.
Many people often seem to hate and judge people’s worth in situations like this.
If I made a significant difference in their profit margin yes. If the food were as good at most other restaurants, yes. If I were part of a boycott that could make a difference, yes. But if they hardly notice my money and I dislike the food at most other places. I might still go there, although perhaps less often. That would be even if the restaurant owner were a war criminal. I don’t believe in making symbolic gestures.
Well, it seems she is exposed to only one side.
Jack Stone
It’s very possible to be critical of someone’s actions, and to speak out against them without having any feelings about them on a personal level. A lot of people seem to think any criticism is a personal attack. You should look at these “many people” and see if they’re criticizing actions and behavior rather than their worth. A lot of people mistake that distinction.
Yeah, ignorance and myopia are great traits I look for in a voice of the atheist community.
Anyway, we seem to have very different priorities. People’s behavior and views do have a big impact on my support of them. That does include associations as well. I loathe the idea of anybody being considered a leader of atheism, but I do think there are faces, and voices of the community. And I will not show support and I will even express my lack of support for people I don’t feel should be representative.
I also think that the people one chooses to support or defend says a lot about them.