I’ve been watching the foot-in-mouth implosion of Jaclyn Glenn of late, and some might want to know my take on it, because some people have asked, given that she kind of sort of but really doesn’t criticize Atheism+.
Atheism Plus More Than Just Whatever
Atheism+ is just a name sometimes used (and rarely anymore) for the growing and ongoing movement to unite atheism, humanism, and skepticism. Hence the “+” in Atheism+ means simply “Atheism + Humanism + Skepticism.” (See all my past writing on the subject, especially my American Atheists convention talk in 2013, a transcript of which I have just now made available, along with a non-animated edition of my slideshow. I have also just published an essay on it in Essays in the Philosophy of Humanism 21.1 , pp. 105-13, which you can now read online as Atheism…Plus What?)
There are generally only three kinds of people against Atheism+ (apart from people who don’t actually know anything about it): people who love and support the goals but hate the name (and I’m all for them…because as I’ve said from day one, I really don’t care what you call it); people who realize humanism entails feminism and hate feminism (and these are often in my experience either awful people or the cultish fans of awful people); and people who realize skepticism means skepticism of claims they like, and hate it when people tear apart their own cherished beliefs (and these are ironically usually the people comprising the SkepticTM community, yet they could take a lesson from the actual Rationality Community: if you aren’t questioning your own beliefs, you are just a dogpile of cognitive biases…like, pretty much every religious person ever).
There are also people who hate the Atheism+ forums, but since I’m not aware of any major Atheism+ advocate having anything to do with those anymore, I really can’t help you if they are eating your babies and skeet shooting kittens. They no longer have official ties to any of us, and are just doing their own thing. Which was, and for all I know still faithfully is, to create a safe space for discussion among advocates of A+ ideals…in other words, a space just for them…so if you are annoyed they won’t let you into their club, usually because you are breaking their rules and aren’t a support advocate, the only people the space was created for, then check your privilege and just accept the fact that you don’t get to disrupt other people’s meetings. If, on the other hand, you are annoyed they said something awful (so far every time someone has said this to me, it turned out not to be true, but whatever), just remember they aren’t me, or any other major advocate of Atheism+ or its goals. Some atheists are horrible people. That doesn’t mean atheism is horrible. As for atheism, so for Atheism+. See Hasty Generalization Fallacy.
Okay, end digression. Back to Jaclyn Glenn.
Summary of a Cascading Train Wreck
This all sort of started back when Glenn went off on a clueless, insensitive, and confusing rant about how misogynist ideology had nothing to do with triggering and molding the behavior of mass murderer Elliot Roger. Or had something to do but not enough to do. Or something. Her point to this day remains unclear. It just sounded like an Archie Bunker ranting his annoyance at so many people calling attention to how ideology + madness = evil (example: fascist Islam + madness = Osama bin Laden). Like Glenn Beck complaining about people blaming Christianity for abortion doctor shootings. Because “those aren’t real Christians” / “that’s not a real misogynist.” No, I know, it doesn’t make sense. I’m not claiming to fathom Jaclyn Glenn’s point.
Anyway, Cristina Rad pwned her right quick, demonstrating the difference between art, sense, clarity, and responsible evidence-based reasoning, and, well, the lack thereof.
That evidently led to bad things. It would seem our erstwhile Archie Bunker got even more annoyed at what their rant wrought, and then produced another video, Atheism + Drama. Which was then promoted by the American Atheists PR Director. (Yep.) By Dawkins, too, of course (no one is surprised). But American Atheists? That’s just sad. They need to hire a PR guy who actually knows how PR works. Anyway, the description of Atheism + Drama begins “A video about Atheism+ and pussies. How appropriate. For those of you wondering- Atheism + is pretty much atheism plus radical feminism.”
Given the content of the video I assume she meant “pussies” as in cats, albeit with the pun on vagina intended. And so I assume she did not mean to say that feminists are pussies. Although in the video there is some vague reference to people taking offense at the word pussy, presumably (?) implying that we aren’t alarmed by calling people dicks, so what’s wrong with calling them pussies? So in case that was her point (?), here is why…
Because equating having a vagina with being pathetic and weak is so totes great for women. I’m infamous for my vulgar working class language (I get attacked for it all the time), and yet even I don’t use toxic slurs like that. Because I don’t believe having a vagina = pathetic and weak, nor do I believe in promoting the idea that having a vagina = pathetic and weak. Pussy punches down. Whereas “dick” punches up: those who have dicks do indeed disproportionately act like, well, dicks: because power and privilege advantages men, and dickishness is power and privilege dialed to eleven. No one assumes that by calling someone a dick you are maligning all possessors of a dick with dickish attributes. Whereas most people do assume that by calling someone a pussy it’s because the worst thing to call a man is a woman. To see the difference, notice how easy it is for a man to be proud of being called a dick. And how nearly impossible it is for anyone, a man or a woman, to be proud of being called a pussy. That’s the difference. One references an attribute in men that many admire and is just called out when being abused. The other is an attribute everyone despises and considers pathetic and shameful. Guess which one is associated with women.
(Oh, BTW, you know who did a really superb video, the best I’ve ever seen, on exactly that point? Cristina Rad. She also has a great blog post and video about why she realized she needed to get behind feminism and not attack it anymore. Which proves people can get it even after they seem like they won’t.)
The best response to Glenn’s Drama is Alex Gabriel’s. It’s a good read top to bottom. In fact, it’s required reading. I’ll assume you’ve read it, in the rest to follow. He amusingly observes right from the start that in this video, supposedly about Atheism Plus, “she at no point actually mentions Atheism Plus.” He then proceeds to show how out of touch it is with the reality the rest of us are living in. (If you want a more thorough fisking, Avicenna has one for you.)
Glenn has a rep for being out of touch with reality. She lovingly accepts and promotes defenses and endorsements from The Amazing Atheist (one of the most horrible people we have in vlogging…does Glenn really not know this?) and The Cult of Dusty (whose creepy anti-semitic jokes will raise the hair on the back of your neck: see analysis by David Landon Cole and The True Pooka, but for the scariest example: “I have nothing against the Jewish people, but if one people or another has been trying to wipe you out over and over again for thousands of years, at some point you might want to ask ‘Maybe it’s us?'” Holy crap Batman). Glenn might not also be aware of Thunderf00t’s evident sociopathy, misogyny, racism, and borderline criminal behavior. Or Pat Condell’s wildly off-the-rails bigotry, and support of violent racist gangs (the EDL being essentially a British analog to the modern KKK, only more violent, and focused on Muslims rather than blacks).
That’s all fixable. When Hemant Mehta promoted the Amazing Atheist and then got schooled by half a dozen commenters on just what that meant, he apologized and said had he known all that he’d have never promoted his video. With so many vloggers and bloggers out there now, it’s possible to miss stuff. It’s only when missing stuff becomes an unapologetic trend that we’re in problem territory.
So, yes, it’s embarrassing to be so out of touch, and so annoyed at what you don’t understand, that thousands of people facepalm every time you try to vent your rage at it. But you know what’s even more embarrassing? When you complain about being called “unoriginal” by plagiarizing someone else’s words and passing them off as your own. Yes, Glenn has done this more than once: see Anti-Feminist Vlogger Jaclyn Glenn Plagiarizes YouTube & Twitter Comments. She later “fixed” the most embarrassing of those examples by adding an attribution and admitting she should have done that in the first place, kind of like a cat that runs pell-mell into a glass door and then immediately sits down and starts calmly grooming itself like nothing ever happened (“That’s right. I’m cool. I planned that. Nothing to see here.”) (The other instance, being in a video plagiarizing another video, can’t be fixed so well. But even the first, originating in a complaint about being called unoriginal, I’m afraid she might never live down. That was definitely an own goal.)
It’s also embarrassing to complain about drama, by deliberating stoking up even more drama–and in the most deliberately dramatic fashion…literally, with dramatic enactments of divisive stereotypes: putting on a blonde wig [stereotype] and acting out straw caricatures of positions she fails to identify as even analogous to any held by any actual existing person, so as to smear an entire group, “feminists,” that isn’t anything like what she’s portrayed–a group already well known for being the target of widespread personal attacks and intimidation and disinformation campaigns, even targeted for murder, a group that in fact comprises an enormous segment of the atheist community (and nearly all of the humanist community), particularly among women. And she’s the one complaining about divisiveness and drama.
Alas. So she dredges up drama with her ill informed and insensitive video about Rodger, gets rightly torn down on almost every point, flips her lid and stokes even more drama with an ill-conceived and stereotyped rant about (?) feminists (or something?), and when that has the effect she should by now have predicted (pissing a lot of good people off, people actively fighting for women’s rights), she stokes even more drama with a response video that’s even more melodramatic, out of touch, and divisive. All to complain about drama and to tell people not to be divisive. This sounds a lot like her complaining about being called unoriginal by being criminally unoriginal. Foot, mouth.
Hey, you know what would actually work if your goal is to end divisiveness in a community? Actually trying to reach out to the people you don’t get along with or don’t understand, read what they have written about this and take them seriously, and try to understand why there are these differences, and to find a way to get along with them. In other words, if you hate divisiveness that much, stop being divisive. Learn. And promote understanding.
Of course, I can predict what will happen if she ever actually tried that: she’d then discover that there are, in reality (and that means, contrary to mythology), only two sides to this issue (not counting clueless people in between who don’t know what’s going on or are not that well informed…like Glenn). There are horrible people who say horrible things and endorse and defend horrible behavior, and people who think that’s horrible. You can’t really heal that rift. You can’t claim that blacks are divisive because they won’t get along with the KKK. And you can’t claim feminists are divisive when they won’t get along with people who treat women and women’s issues with unapologetic disrespect. Some people need to be cut loose. Like the KKK. And MRAs. (And everyone who defends them and insists we get along with them.)
Now to my take on the cascading train wreck of her last two videos on this topic.
Glenn’s Drama video is four minutes of WTF. (Seriously. Watch it. No, please, really. Force yourself to sit through it. I promise no triggers or anything horrible. It’s bewildering and perplexing and devoid of coherent cognitive content. That’s kind of the problem. But tedious is more tolerable than, say, misogynistic, so you can handle it. It’s just four minutes.)
The bizarre shit starts around minute 0:40. Then we have to sit through three (!) minutes of some sort of completely made-up debate, that no one has ever had…and Glenn is not claiming they have, she clearly knows this is totally made-up, which defies the point of using it. Something that never happens, is not usually going to be a good analog to what really happens. So why are we being made to watch this? I don’t know. But do watch it, so you can see what I mean…
I am a little disturbed by what this looks like she is doing: defending MRA ideology. “Why do you fight all the time for women’s rights, why don’t you fight for men’s rights?” That’s the stock MRA slogan. It’s the Dear Muslima of MRA propaganda. That might not be what she intended, but since she doesn’t tell us what she intended, all we are left with is what it looks like. So if it looks like something she didn’t intend, that’s on her. Bad communication. And worse, people who agree with that twisted view may well be regarding her as defending it. Either way, it bears response.
It’s a ridiculous trope, of course, because feminists do fight for both. It’s not as if Greta Christina never goes to bat for religious freedom because she’s so busy just helping women. It’s not as if I haven’t also advocated for attention to men’s issues at the same time that I advocate for feminism, write about feminist issues, and even debate with fellow feminists (yes, feminists disagree with each other…and have civil debates about it…shock!). We just know that women’s rights have a lot further to go–and that most of what’s peculiarly bad for men is a product of their own culture’s sexist treatment of women.
For example, the trope that “women are more caring than men” is sometimes blamed for gender disparities in the resolution of child custody cases, yet that disparity is really anti-woman sexism run amok. To begin with, the trope itself is a product of male “control doctrines” to dominate women: you are more caring means you belong at home taking care of our babies while we take care of the important cerebral stuff in the world that requires stoic resolve. And it would be unfair to blame women when men’s own sexism comes back to bite them. But in reality, this trope has little or nothing to do with remaining disparities in child custody cases. The data show that in fact, when both parents are otherwise equally fit and asking for custody, child custody cases are most typically decided in favor of which parent has been devoting the most time to the care of the child, regardless of whether it’s the father or the mother. That that just happens more often to be the woman is a product of the sexist cultural assumption that women take care of babies while men work to support them. A cultural assumption feminists have been at the forefront of combating–and which ironically MRAs are often at the forefront of defending. (Yep. They want to help men, by defending the sexist attitudes about women that hurt men, by forcing men and women into strict gender roles that are the very cause of the disadvantage to men that they complain about. Meanwhile, feminists are actually helping men by fighting the stereotypes that disadvantage them.)
This is the kind of nuance you don’t get from Glenn. I don’t think she even knew about any of that or has ever thought about it. Which is her only saving grace. It allows me to think that maybe she doesn’t realize she is defending a stock argument for the vile ideological misogyny of the MRA movement. “Men have problems too” is a silencing tactic, meant to argue that we should stop paying attention to the far more ubiquitous and extreme ways women are disadvantaged in society. And it relies on the myth that feminists don’t ever do anything for men. When in reality, feminists are the ones doing the most for men, not only by advancing the ideals of feminism itself (e.g. tearing down the stereotypes that hurt both sexes, exposing toxic notions of masculinity, helping men better understand women), but also by advancing causes other than feminism. Because no feminist is just a feminist. Some are also advocates for prison and sentencing reform, for example (an injustice that affects far more men than women–given that more men are incarcerated–although women are also ground under by America’s horrific penal system). Why, gosh golly heck, some are even animal rights activists! (I mention that because…well, if you’ve watched Glenn’s video by now, you’ll know why). The idea that feminists only do feminist causes is an MRA myth. To see Jaclyn Glenn seemingly buying into that myth, and even promoting it, can only be either tragic or disturbing–depending on her level of awareness of just what she’s done.
The strangest thing is that no argument is actually made in this video. Feminism is never mentioned. Atheism Plus is never mentioned. No positions or arguments from any feminists or Atheism Plus advocates are ever mentioned. No actual positions or arguments, of any kind, are mentioned in this video. No comparison is drawn between her wildly bizarre and contra-factual analog and…anything. Whatever her point is, good luck figuring it out. Whatever she is actually responding to, no idea. The only reason anyone would ever think this video has anything to do with feminism or Atheism Plus is that its description says that it does. It says this video explains how feminists and Atheism Plus advocates are … er, are like … or … uh… have (maybe?) … “pussies.” Or something. I don’t know.
So, that. People got annoyed. So Glenn flips her lid again. And this time produces Atheists–Beware of the Extreme Feminist! Now here is where one could actually produce a good, informative video, explaining the difference between mainstream and what she calls “radical” feminism. There are such things as horrifically extremist feminists that 99% of professed feminists denounce. And you can find their rarefied and bizarre manhating blogs if you look around long enough. But then, I can also find white supremacist atheists who wax poetical about Hitler. One would not then conclude that atheists (or indeed even a significant segment of atheists) were Hitler-loving white supremacists. Right? One can attack the fringe whacko atheist, without attacking or maligning atheists. But somehow, when people attack “fringe whacko feminism,” all feminists get thrown under the bus. Indeed, in most cases I don’t think the person talking about “fringe whacko feminism” has actually read a fringe whacko feminist. (I have. It’s scary.)
This video starts with some unrelated bungling. She seems to confuse the institutional criminality of the Catholic Church as somehow an indictment of even the liberal sects of Christianity that denounce it. She seems even to say liberal Christians share blame for the Tea Party. That doesn’t make much sense. She then starts citing Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus (which she just recently started reading!) as if it were an authoritative science textbook, when in fact all scientific experts on gender have denounced it as pseudoscience (e.g. see this summary by Paul Harris; and this dissertation by Jo Noonan). How does she not know this? Sigh. Anyway. She only uses it for an argument in favor of validation as a communication procedure, which is genuine science at least (although contrary to its sexist deployment in MAMWAV, it applies equally to all genders). But it’s an odd point to make since this is precisely what Glenn hasn’t been doing for the feminist community.
Anyway, she then at least gets to a sensible point, which is that she has been trying to say she is against extreme versions of feminism and not all feminism. Except she never explains what the difference is. Nor does she apologize for the communication failure of having failed to explain this before. Remember, her Drama video’s descrip said all Atheism Plus advocates are the Extreme Feminists she is attacking. Which means she is attacking me. And Greta Christina. And numerous other leading, mainstream feminist authors. Not extremists. So her claim only to be attacking some sort of undefined “extremist” looks very disingenuous.
And now in her Beware video, it just gets worse. Because again she fails to identify a single actual instance of the extreme feminism she is arguing against. She claims she’s seen it. But that’s no help to us, because we don’t know what she means by that–what is she considering an extreme version of feminism? This is a basic communication failure: assuming your audience knows what you are talking about, and thus failing to point them to any examples of what you are talking about. In actual fact, anti-feminists call almost all feminism “extreme feminism.” It’s a trope. I can only assume Glenn is so out of touch she doesn’t know that this is a rhetorical tactic: denouncing all feminism by calling any instance of feminism “radical feminism.” Because if she knew that, she’d realize how important it is for her to explain that’s not what she means, and to explain just in fact what she does mean, what actually is extreme feminism, and why.
Glenn then reinforces the communication failure of her previous video by saying she was only attacking feminists who act like she portrayed in that video. But in that video she never explained what feminists or feminist arguments she was talking about. Again, MRAs say all those same things. But when they say “radfem,” they actually mean all feminism. So it does not help Glenn to repeat the rhetorical tropes of the MRA movement by claiming she didn’t mean “the good ones” but only “the bad ones.” Because that’s the rhetoric the MRA movement uses to attack all feminism and pretend not to be. Glenn still has yet to explain what she means by “the bad ones,” and still has not presented a single actual example of it.
At SSA West Con last month I gave a talk on exactly this kind of communications failure. Video of that may go online in a few weeks, but an expanded print version of my talk is available already on Lanyrd. Read the section there titled “Start with the Particular and then Generalize.” In short, if you don’t give actual concrete examples of what you are talking about, we cannot determine if you have correctly generalized from particulars or not, we cannot even determine what kinds of particulars you are generalizing from. A huge number of communications disasters have resulted from this. Don’t do it. Whenever you possibly can, always give particular, real world examples of what you are talking about, and then build generalizations and abstract principles from them. And when you do that, make sure your generalizations and abstractions are actually justified by the particulars you’ve assembled. You may realize you have to nuance your generalizations. Glenn has consistently failed to do all of this.
And this is a problem because Glenn is communicating (cluelessly, I hope) in an atmosphere where her exact arguments (generalizations devoid of particulars, effectively attacking all feminism under the guise of attacking only radical feminism) are a mainstay of antifeminist and MRA rhetoric. She has no right to be shocked that that’s how people react to her: as someone repeating antifeminist and MRA rhetoric. Had she been more clued in to what’s actually going on in the world, she would have known this from day one, and thus avoided repeating and thus lending inadvertent support to misogynist ideologies. At least I hope. Let’s all hope, that what for them is a tactic, is for her just incompetence.
This cluelessness then leads her to defend herself with an infamous fallacy (around minute 3:20). Instead of realizing that what went wrong is that she waded into a debate wholly unfamiliar with the weapons already being used by misogynists in that debate, and thus cluelessly used those same weapons, she blames all feminists for getting angry because she must have “hit close to home” with her criticism (echoes of blaming liberal Protestants for the crimes of the Catholic church here). I teach a seminar in logic in which I present almost the exact same fallacy she just did, as a teaching tool. In this case I use an actual example from Mike Hukabee: “The Air Force has a saying that says ‘if you’re not catching flak, you’re not over the target’. I’m catching flak, so I must be on target.” Here is a diagram of the logic he (and thus Glenn) just used:
- If A (you’re not catching flak) then B (you’re not on the target).
- ~A (you are catching flak).
- Therefore ~B (you are on the target).
This is called the Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent.
Tripping over logic aside, Glenn then goes on to criticize PZ Myers’ response to her Drama video. And here, most bizarrely, Glenn makes a really strange error. She completely misses the fact that PZ actually made the point that I just did: give particulars, not fantasy abstractions. She says instead that PZ argued she shouldn’t mock her opponents (and then rightly refutes such a silly argument by pointing out atheists do this all the time, even PZ). But PZ never argued that. See Straw Man Fallacy.
Here is what PZ actually said (in the very article Glenn links to and claims to be answering):
Look, if you want to be effective, you have to at least quote the real arguments of real opponents. Do not invent characters who do not exist and then place silly words in their mouths. If I’m arguing against religion, I don’t have to resort to mocking imaginary Christians — there is more than enough proudly stated idiocy in the religious community to keep me busy for years. It’s telling that when Glenn wants to argue against the divisiveness of feminists, she has to gather lots of hay and stuff it into a silly costume, and then translate them to vegetarianism, in order to try and come off looking reasonable.
That is not arguing “don’t mock people.” To the contrary, PZ explicitly endorses mocking people here. What PZ is saying is: if you’re going to resort to mockery, mock something that actually exists. Just as I explained above, and in my SSA talk.
Glenn doesn’t get the point.
She so doesn’t get the point, that now, in this eleven minute video, she still doesn’t give any actual examples of what she means by “extreme” feminism.
Glenn then claims PZ Myers has said things about her like “she’s just a cute girl.” A Google search of “just a cute girl” “pz myers” “jaclyn glenn” produces no hits; with just “cute girl,” I find only someone else, not PZ, saying anything like that. Without context, I can’t comment–on even whether he actually said that, much less what he meant by it or how he qualified or contextualized it. (That’s why citing sources and explaining context is important, Jaclyn Glenn.) Glenn goes on to make more claims, again without citing sources or giving a real example. So we can’t check who she is talking about, or what they actually said, or the context in which they said it, or how they qualified it.
This is just the worst possible way to communicate.
But there is evidence her reasoning is also too defensive to get the point. On the plagiarism case, she now says, in a childishly mocking tone (around minute 6:00), that after she fixed it, “then of course, as expected, you get the typical response, ‘she only fixed it because we said something!’ … So would you have me not fix it?”
I can pretty much tell that’s not what her critics meant. They meant that she pretended she didn’t make an embarrassing mistake that refuted the very argument she was trying to make (“I’m not unoriginal; let me prove it by doing the most quintessentially unoriginal thing”). They meant that fixing it after the fact does not alter history: she still had to be told to give credit, and only when she was caught. Which casts into doubt all her other work: how many other times has she done this, and she just wasn’t caught? But more importantly, why did she have to be told to do this? Why did it not even occur to her in the first place that borrowing someone else’s words without attribution and passing them off as your own is something you just don’t do? You don’t get off that hook by scrambling to add the attribution. The original error is still disturbing, and remains disturbing. That’s what people mean by “you only did this because we caught you.” They don’t mean you should never have corrected the record. They are saying correcting the record doesn’t solve the deeper problem that caused this to happen in the first place.
It’s just like when a celebrity gets caught running dogfights and then repents tearfully on TV and gives money to a dog rescue charity. “You only did that because we caught you” is a legitimate criticism. The celebrity doesn’t get off the hook that way. It’s all very nice, what they did after the fact. Cheers all around. But it doesn’t change the fact that they thought it was cool to kill dogs for bloodsport. That deeper problem–that such a thing would seem okay to them in the first place–remains uncorrected. And they remain unredeemed.
Is that not the most important lesson Glenn should be learning from this? Instead she seems to avoid learning it, by defensively misunderstanding the entire point of what her critics are telling her. I am not encouraged by that.
It’s at this point (around timestamp 6:20) that Glenn starts into a rant about what “they” say and think. Who is “they”? She seems to mean all her critics…in other words, all feminists criticizing her. So much for this video supposedly being about “extreme” feminists. At no point in this video does she ever actually discuss “extreme” feminism. All she does is react defensively to her critics and tar them all with the same strawman generalizations. In short, she is saying any feminist who criticizes her is an extreme feminist. Which is exactly again what MRAs do: claim to be attacking “extreme” feminism, and then only rant about all feminists and what “they” (feminists) do and say. Again, that Glenn is treated like an MRA is because she is acting exactly like an MRA. That she doesn’t realize this is what she’s doing makes this sad. But that still doesn’t help her cause.
Atheism Plus More Than Just Whatever Again
And then for the first time in all these videos she mentions Atheism Plus (around 6:30), only to say there have been serious mistakes in it, but again she gives no examples. None. Worse, she only says this to use it in a Tu Quoque Fallacy (Glenn is not very good with logic). Glenn then says that she approves of what Atheism Plus stands for (or “what it should stand for”), although she again doesn’t really say what that is. This again sounds like MRAs who say they approve of what feminism “should” stand for, if only it wasn’t for all those actual feminists ruining the world. I don’t think that’s what Glenn means. But again, it’s exactly what she sounds like.
But then Glenn explicitly denies that she’s in favor of Atheism Plus (7:10). After having just said she approves of it (7:00). A certain hilarious episode of Chappelle’s Show comes to mind. But to explain why she is against Atheism Plus she gives another bizarre analogy, this time about an awful movie theater being a great idea but horrid in execution. But then she never connects this analogy to Atheism Plus. She never explains what in Atheism Plus has been badly executed. Or why. Nor does she seem to grasp that if it’s a great idea badly executed, why not then execute it well? There are, after all, movie theaters that aren’t horrid. No one says “this one theater sucked, therefore I am against all movie theaters whatever.” So Glenn’s analogy is hosed from start to finish. This is just the worst way to argue.
Glenn then goes on to repeat the overworn trope of everyone who has ever been criticized since ever: “Couldn’t you have just called me first?” Advice she then has never once followed herself (at least in this fiasco). Which fits the trope, because everyone who has ever said that, also has never actually done it. DJ Grothe could have called Rebecca Watson before blaming her for something she wasn’t at fault for. When he got pwned for this, his complaint? “My critics should have called me first.” Ron Lindsay could have spoken to some feminists first about some of his concerns before telling an audience of feminists about his completely uninformed concerns. When he got pwned for this, his complaint? “My critics should have called me first.” Jaclyn Glenn doesn’t call the people she criticizes before criticizing them. Why does she expect the people she criticizes to then call her before criticizing her back?
Public discourse is not a coffee klatch. If you say something in public, you will get criticized for it in public. That’s how it works. We all need to accept this. Or get out of the business of saying things in public.
Glenn then says various things that are perfectly reasonable but not relevant (like that she is friends with Cristina Rad, can have productive debates with her, and did not mean to imply she was mocking Rad with that wig…for the record, I didn’t think she was). She then defends Cult of Dusty’s anti-Semitic jokes (see below). Then asks people to get along. And…wrap.
In case you haven’t noticed, still no discussion of extreme feminists or what extreme feminism is. Anywhere.
What we are left with is the description of her Drama video that “Atheism + is pretty much atheism plus radical feminism.” Which basically is saying all feminism is radical feminism. The very thing she insists she’s not saying, yet says right there. And yet nowhere in that video does she defend that claim or even expound on it. Nor again in her eleven minute followup video, which was supposed (?) to explain what her Drama video didn’t.
So in all these videos Glenn still hasn’t explained what feminist statements she is against or who said them or where. She still hasn’t explained what’s wrong with Atheism Plus or why she is not interested in fixing it. She has not, in fact, said hardly anything substantive at all, apart from various illogical and ill-informed reasons why people should stop giving her a hard time for being illogical and ill-informed.
More logic, more listening, more caring about what people are saying, better communication skills, and less defensiveness, could produce a better Jaclyn Glenn. Hope remains.
 Note that Glenn says Dusty told her his ‘Jews deserved it’ line was “just” a joke–but this isn’t the only disturbing remark from him on the subject, so that explanation is a bit thin, and Pooka and Cole not only explain that, but also why “it’s just a joke” is exactly what anti-Semites always say. Glenn also says Dusty apologized, but provides no public evidence of this, and I was unable to find any. A public apology video for all his anti-Semitic jokes is surely the appropriate recourse for anyone who is genuinely apologetic. If he ever does this, let me know and I’ll add a link here. Also in his defense Glenn creates a false parallel between a staged stand-up routine about random children, and internet comments made to and about Jews: not in a staged stand-up routine, and repeating bigoted tropes, about a still-persecuted minority who in living memory was subject to a massive attempt at extermination. Sorry, but I have to call False Analogy.
 Update: Glenn uses the phrases “radical feminism” and “extreme feminism” seemingly interchangeably. I follow her lead for convenience. Just note that in fact “radical feminism” in the actual historiography of feminism has a very specific, often variable, and now largely outdated meaning, which has little to do with what Glenn means by it (or most anti-feminists, who think they coined the phrase).