Outside of the radical feminist nonsense

Also yay Jaclyn Glenn is promising yet another video attacking “radical feminists” yet again for all this “atheist infighting” that is apparently all their fault. Yay Jaclyn Glenn is putting an end to atheist infighting by attacking atheists who are also feminists.

Wait, what?


OK combining video ideas. One comprehensive video on atheist infighting should be out Monday. If there’s something you really want included outside of the radical feminist nonsense let me know!

She’s such a huge help! All this pesky atheist infighting will finally stop and die and be over, thanks to the way she keeps attacking what she calls “radical feminists.” If only someone had thought of that sooner!


  1. Athywren says

    Well hey, it’s not light infighting can serve any purpose, is it? Certainly, it’s not as if there are any flaws to the atheist movement that we might want to fix. We’re far too young of a movement to care about actually attempting to be better people than the religious groups we keep criticising!

  2. says

    I’m going to dare a prediction: I bet that Glenn will propose that the solution to “atheist infighting” (is this the new name for Deep Rifts?) is for the AtheismPlus fanatics Social Justice Warriors to shut up and sit down and just remember that it’s supposed to be About Atheism.

  3. Blanche Quizno says

    I’ve never engaged with any of that organized atheist stuff – and I think that has turned out to be a smart move.

    I know misogyny is rampant in Western culture, with patriarchy entrenched in privilege and entitlement, but is there really no hope?

    I don’t want to play with these guys. I just want to be able to live free.

  4. UnknownEric the Apostate says

    So the movement is supposedly upset that there’s all these schisms. Yet, they actively promote voices who do nothing but yell nasty bullshit at one side of the schism. But they’re not the problem. Oh no. Totes not.

  5. says

    Quoting myself from elsewhere: Nah, I’m fine with her sticking to the “radical feminist nonsense”–provided she can accurately quote and source it. And I wish her much luck with that.

  6. resident_alien says

    It saddens me intensely to watch a grown woman make such a fool of herself for a pat on the head and a few “Good girl!” chocolates from men who in actuality have nothing but contempt for her.

  7. thephilosophicalprimate says

    Indeed! I’ve had a few choice words about some nonsense from self-described “feminists” — even self-described “radical feminists” — myself. But when I criticize someone for promoting gender essentialism or transphobia, or for throwing women under the bus of cultural relativism, I criticize views they have actually expressed and make an argument for why those views are harmful. If sufficiently vexed, I might even make an extended argument that those views reinforce rather than undermine the patriarchal power structure feminism is intended to oppose. What I don’t do is what Glenn’s video did: I don’t put ridiculous imagined words in people’s mouths to make them look bad, since there are plenty of people (like Glenn) making themselves look bad by saying actually ridiculous things without my assistance.

    Mind you, I have also sometimes mocked people spouting such views, and Glenn has earned some mockery for how ridiculously bad and blatantly self-contradictory her arguments are. But mockery *added* to arguments is different from just mockery without any arguments, or with transparent self-serving rhetoric instead of actual arguments — which is Glenn’s chosen approach. If she were more self-aware, Glenn might realize how richly she deserves such mockery: When you put so much time and energy into publicly showing your metaphorical ass, you’re inviting it to be metaphorically kicked. But alas, she remains without a clue.

    Maybe one of these days Glenn will get sick of being constantly hit on by creepers — which I don’t for a moment doubt she experiences online frequently, and will experience more in person when she hits the public appearance circuit more heavily ( as she apparently plans to do). Perhaps, after being hit on again and again even when she clearly expresses a desire not to be, Glenn might be foolish enough to say something negative about the experience in public. If she’s looking for words for that future occasion, I might suggest these: “Guys, don’t do that.” I’m sure such a modest, measured admonishment of boorish behavior couldn’t possibly cause any backlash against her from her current fans.

  8. Sili says

    Thunderf00t better watch out — she’s aiming to take over his niche.

    How – dare I say it – divisive.

    Still, I’m big on schadenfreude, so it’ll be fun to what Them™ eat their young.

  9. screechymonkey says

    I’m confused — I was repeatedly assured by Commander Tuvok or whatever he was calling himself that Atheism+/FTB/Skepchick/etc. were all irrelevant and one second away from being laughed out of the movement, or frog-marched in chains or whatever the fuck he was hoggling about… now we’re a threat to divide the movement with infighting?

  10. murtadmufliH says

    Ok, is it me or is Jacklyn Glenn is simply just another troll at this point? 1st she is proving herself to be confrontional the more this goes on,her responses are in noway balanced and rational, compare Cristina Rads response to her video after the whole Elliot Rodger is ” mentally insane” video and Glenn’s reaction and what followed since , as if she is just trying to provoke anyone that disagrees with her. I can be wrong but I think she is in it for the fight, maybe Cristina’s response hit and still hits a nerve. If such is the case , may be the best way to handle her is simply ignore her and ask those who disagree with her to ignore her and tell her she has lost the fight and with it the respect from many of us. I know someone will say “she has an audience , look she has 10k followers on youtube” well who are those followers and how many are really loyal to her? Many of them are most likely misogynists who will never have respect for any woman, and many others joined , like myself, after watching some of her other videos on religion, gay rights and homophobia, I have already unsuscribed after her second video on Rodger. Just an opinion that’s all

  11. says

    I wonder which “radical feminists” she is going to use as the framework for her strawfeminists? Dworkin? Sherri Tepper’s tribe-leaders from “the gate to women’s country”? And, if she chooses such targets, I wonder if she’ll manage to offer a critique that hasn’t already been offered in the 30 or so years since those positions were advanced?

  12. thetalkingstove says

    I don’t suppose Glenn has actually cited her specific issues with ‘radical feminism nonsense’, has she?

  13. quixote says

    “Specific issues”? You mean actually talk to her about an actual argument? Like, with evidence and all that? As if she was a real person? [Dropping out of snark for a moment to apologize for using “was” where a subjunctive-aware blog requires “were,” but it just doesn’t go with the voice.] The point, which you’ve obviously missed, is she’s soooo cuuuuute. Amirite?

    (Personally, I think she’s aiming for enough publicity to get name recognition and then a paying gig somewhere. Daily Mail? Fox News?)

  14. says

    Fuck, talk about being late to the party. This’ll be like the several dozenth comprehensive video attacking alleged radical feminism (by which is almost always meant common-or-garden everyday feminism) this year, will it not?

    To continue the party analogy, Glenn’s rolling up in her Jeep Cherokee with a Twister set and some preppy friends at the point when most of the bros have already passed out and Sharpie’d cocks on each other’s faces.

    Edgy as fuck, Jaclyn, that’s what you are.

  15. John Kauffman says

    You guys would win this little fight if you just had a sense of humor and ignored it.

  16. chigau (違う) says

    If Jaclyn Glenn was 16 years old and just discovering feminism, I could see ignorance as an explanation.
    However, she is 26 years old.
    Her failure to acknowledge her current location on the shoulders of giants is disingenuous.
    or just fucking lying.

  17. says

    John Kauffman, who says? How do you know? What’s your reasoning? It’s not the case that doing nothing automatically wins all fights; why would it be the case with this one?

    Also, sense of humor? Please. It’s not as if Jaclyn Glenn is another Kate Smurthwaite.

  18. says

    I’d like to echo Ophelia at 19: John, I’d love to hear how not responding to this bullshit will “win” this for us.

    Your argument is essentially “don’t feed the trolls” but Glenn isn’t just some isolated example of trollish behaviour that can be ignored; she’s got a lot of subscribers (and has gained significantly more since Dawkins has been tweeting her approvingly – this isn’t the first time). She is one of many youtube atheists with an anti-feminist agenda and a large audience.

    Also: a sense of humour only works when something is funny, even if it is at your own expense. This may have been intended to be funny, but all I see is a ham-fisted caricature and an argument reminiscent of Clint Eastwood haranguing an empty chair. It’s also far too easy: if she wanted to display how freakin’ intelligent and funny she is, she could’ve done the same thing with the wig but used the actual arguments of feminists and not her klutzy self-serving paraphrases.

  19. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    John Kauffman @ 17

    You guys would win this little fight if you just had a sense of humor and ignored it.

    How about no. Does that work for you? No? Too fucking bad.

  20. Athywren says

    @John Kauffman

    You guys would win this little fight if you just had a sense of humor and ignored it.

    How exactly does ignoring strawman arguments built from ignorance and arrogance help us defeat the ignorance or temper the arrogance?

  21. John Morales says

    Ophelia @19,

    Also, sense of humor? Please. It’s not as if Jaclyn Glenn is another Kate Smurthwaite.

    Reeks of Vaudeville performance art; were it transcribed, it would lose much of its punch.

  22. screechymonkey says

    Hank_Says @16:

    alleged radical feminism (by which is almost always meant common-or-garden everyday feminism)

    It’s an elastic term. In theory, it means some straw-like folk who want to castrate all men, criminalize all flirting, and proclaim women superior to men. In practice, yes, it means everyday feminism, because that’s who it’s all directed at.

    It’s sort of like how conservatives get all agitated about “socialists” who want to take over the country and send everyone to death camps under the supervision of the UN, except that it turns out that “socialists” are really just people who, uh, think maybe we should do something about people without health insurance, and maybe raise the marginal tax rate on the top 1% from 36% to 39.6%.

  23. Hj Hornbeck says

    You know what? I’m cool with Glenn doing this.

    No, seriously. Look, feminism has been heavily demonized for over a century, with no end in sight. Having yet another popular YouTube atheist join in the choir doesn’t twig the signal-to-noise ratio all that much.

    What it does do is get people talking about feminism. Here are some fairly high-up leaders splashing her work around as if it’s solid gold, when it quite blatantly demonizes strawpeople. Some people are gonna compare her videos to the response blogs and videos, and realize they might have been misinformed.

    It’s the same as a preacher shouting about all the ridiculous evils atheists do; when someone bothers to look into the details, they’ll feel cheated by that pastor and probably switch sides. That pastor is creating atheists, and by the same token Glenn is creating feminists.

    Admittedly, there are far less painful ways to create feminists, but the solution is easy enough: stand up, be a vocal supporter or defender of feminism, and let Glenn keep firing rounds into her own foot.

  24. funknjunk says

    @4 Unknown Eric – “Yet, they actively promote voices who do nothing but yell nasty bullshit at one side of the schism.” Exactly. I’m not sure why these guys – Dawkins, Muscato, etc. – are promoting this stuff. It just seems to me that they won’t be happy until the entirely of the Atheist movement is associated with TAA and people like him. Uh, I guess they have genius marketing folks performing elenth level chess that I’m unaware of?? I AM an atheist, and I don’t want to be associated with these people …. dog almighty, I don’t get it at all. Where do they want “the movement” to go and who do they want representing it? Seriously, they want TAA, Tfoot and Jaclyn Glenn representing the movement?

Leave a Reply

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