You knew it was on the way – another Jaclyn Glenn video about the horrors of what she chooses to call (without defining it) “Extreme Feminism.” This time (oh the honor) she goes after me, although without naming me.
She starts by saying she’s going to talk about all the drama that’s been going on for the past couple of weeks. There’s disdain in the way she says “drama” – which is a bit rich, considering how much “drama” there is about her own videos. Does she think they’re calm and cool and carefully reasoned?
She talks about “not all priests!” and “not all Tea Partiers!” and being defensive, and says it’s better to acknowledge faults rather than shout “not all.” That’s true enough, but then it’s also better to be precise about what the faults are and who has them, which she hasn’t done in the anti-feminism videos of hers that I’ve seen so far.
She says people were “offended” by her last video, which shows her she “hit pretty close to home.” No it doesn’t; not necessarily. It could be that it was just a shit video attacking feminism, and that that’s why people thought it was bad and wrong.
About eight minutes in is the bit where she gets to me.
One of my pet peeves is a lack of direct communication, if you’re a friend or a friend of a friend I wish that they would try to actually talk to me before making things a public issue – don’t assume that you know my intentions. I’m actually not that difficult to get a hold of and one of these bloggers fits that description but didn’t make an attempt to contact me directly because I have this exaggerated number of fans – [she shows an image of a comment of mine on my post about last week’s video] – you know what you didn’t try, you didn’t want to, you said it yourself, you’re a writer, not a diplomat [picture of dictionary definition of diplomat] well that’s pretty clear because a definition of a diplomat is a person who can deal with people in a sensitive and effective way, well sensitive is one thing but effective is the key word here, she’s not necessarily concerned with being effective because she’s a writer, they like stories and plots are lame without a villain, my hair’s already pretty dark so why not, they’ll use any method to bring me down, they’ll attack me with other things, they will focus on things totally irrelevant to my criticism of extreme feminism because it’s easier to bring me down than to actually address my points because remember, admitting error is demonized.
The transcription is as is – there are no periods because there are none in the video, she doesn’t punctuate her own speech.
So anyway. One, no, I don’t fit that description: I don’t have any friends who are friends with her. Two – what she argues there makes no sense. She put out her video in public, so why shouldn’t I or anyone write about it in public? Why on earth does she expect people to have a personal conversation with her first? I don’t know her, I don’t have any friends who know her that I’m aware of, I don’t have connections with her, I don’t have a history of talking to her – why would I try to talk to her before I write about a YouTube video of hers? She has two hundred thousand subscribers – that’s the population of a small city. Why would I have to ask her what she meant in her video when her video is already out there? What is made public is what is made public; it doesn’t matter what the intentions were, what matters is what is made public. If she didn’t make herself clear, she can make another video to make herself clear, but it’s not my job or any critic’s job to interview her before criticizing her video. She didn’t interview me before bashing feminism, did she.
Later she sums up her approach again.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with disagreeing with someone as long as you keep it respectful and make an attempt to work past your differences. That’s all I’m asking for; I think all the drama that’s been going on recently is pathetic because like we’ve seen – they’re writers, not diplomats.
That’s ridiculous. She doesn’t “keep it respectful” herself – she mocks and jeers and sneers and dons a wig. It’s absurd for her to complain about “drama” and lack of respect.
So why didn’t she follow her own advice and respectfully and personally contact the people causing this ‘drama’ to talk the issues through with them?
(Whoever those people are, I still don’t know what her actual, specific complaints entail)
If your aim is to reduce ‘drama’, then vague, accusatory, ‘funny’ videos is an odd way to go about it.
This is so odd to me, she is talking about a critique of a youtube video that she made public. To hundreds of thousands of people. It was always a public issue, so what is she going on about?
She means to say that we should work through our differences this way:
1) She shits on strawman versions of what we believe, and uses that to justify shitting on us as people
2) We either agree with her or STFU about it.
3) If we don’t, go back to #1
We’ve seen this before. It doesn’t help that she’s a dimwit who’s convinced that she’s a unique genius because she has a lot of fans.
What she’s really asking for is the right to censor whatever you might have been planning to say.
Don’t writers use punctuation? I think even diplomats do.
Joe – nailed it.
Gee, I wonder why she didn’t contact you privately to discuss your differences instead of making another YouTube video?
I mean, that would be so reasonable. Who wouldn’t do that?
Oh right…she wouldn’t.
@3: She’s female and she’s on YouTube…obviously she has a lot of fans.
I’ll bet 80% of them wouldn’t be able to tell you the color of her eyes.
SPOIIIINNNNGGGG!
She says people were “offended” by her last video, which shows her she “hit pretty close to home.”
Anyone else feels nostalgic about the times Chris Mooney said something similar?
@8 Kevin: Irony? Not clear if you are saying that it is important to notice eye colour with women?
@the world: the drama is pathetic, there is vitriol on all sides, it is as vicious as mere words can get. Practically every criticism made applies to both parties (which makes FTB very confusing) and it is still Tweedledum versus Tweedledee, Richly entertaining. Keep up the work.
No, not practically every criticism. There are important ones that don’t apply to “both parties.” For instance it’s not true that both Glenn and I totally fail to be specific about what we’re criticizing or attacking. That applies to Glenn far more than it applies to me.
Nope. No one is insulting Glenn with sexist slurs. No one is threatening her. The viciousness is not on both sides.
@yahweh
the drama is pathetic, there is vitriol on all sides
Yeah – militant atheists , same as religious fundamentalists –
@11: Merely pointing out that her “fans” are most likely not there for the scintillating rhetoric and iron-clad argumentation.
She’s working what she’s got…and what she’s got mainly isn’t between her ears. Call me a cynic if you like: but I’ll warn you that the power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those who do not have that power. (HT: GBShaw)
You can prove me wrong by synthesizing her arguments and pointing out her appropriate use of logic and authoritative sources to back up her assertions.
She can’t be serious. No one can handle that much cognitive dissonance without their brains leaking out of their ears. She’s a troll who wants to be put on a pedestal as an ‘exceptional woman’ and therefore protected from the abuse heaped upon all the other women. She’s Coulter and Schlfay.
Kevin, there is a huge distance between completely agreeing with everything she has to say and reducing her to a brainless talking pretty head. To me she comes across as intelligent and well spoken in general, although I disagree with most of her points and the way she’s chosen to illustrate them.
Assuming people are only listening to her because of her appearance is distasteful–please don’t.
You mean she didn’t call out Cathy Brennan in her missive on the problem of atheist radical feminists making us all look bad. What! I mean Cathy really has got to be no.1, what with the SPLC doing an intelligence report on her and the other TERFs like they did for the MRAs/Manosphere. Not to mention 9,000 feminists signing a petition to get the SPLC to do more and actually monitor her and friends as a hate group. She is notorious!
It’s almost like Jaclyn doesn’t know a thing about radical feminism and feminists in the secular community, at all.
I expect it’s already been pointed out somewhere in all of this. But in case I didn’t just miss it: the indispensable Randall Munroe has already published what I’d consider the critical observation relevant to this phenomenon.
jenBPhillips
Yeah, that makes me uneasy too.
And it’s not like you have to look like a model or make well reasoned arguments to be popular on YouTube (see Thunderfoot, Girl Writes What). Just slamming feminism will do, apparently.
Yeah, no real reason to mention her looks. The fact that she’s spewing a kind of stock script is more than enough to make her popular with the sort of choir that likes being preached to.
Unsurprisingly she gets a lot of sexist comments under her videos. I’d imagine if she actually did any feminist ones criticising another, male, YT atheist for something sexist they did then they’d reach a much higher level. But she wouldn’t do that.
Jaclyn posted this video on her facebook page (on July 5). Not exactly consistent with her video’s latest message of keeping it civil:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czVhvRfoQ6c
And with her latest video, she calls out PZ at around 4:13 for doing something very similar to a post she made on May 24th, where she shared a picture of part of an email she received and commented “SO UNRESPECTFUL!!!”. Weird how she didn’t feel the need to address the criticisms made in the email…
Then, of course, there was a status update she made on facebook on July 19, where she shared The Amazing Atheist’s status that started out with the lovely phrase “PZ Myers is a pile of shit in a man suit”.
So, if she criticizes a group/movement/whatever, and someone comes back to her with anything but friendly critiques of her arguments, you are being “reactionary” and “totally proving her point”. But when she does it (or her friends do it), it is totes okay!
I have no words, really .. but here I am commenting. I can barely make is through a minute of her stuff, its so bad. WHO ARE THESE SUBSCRIBERS? I’m sorry, but is this the bottom of the intellectual barrel of the Atheist community? She’s like the atheist talk version of Save By The Bell or some such? Who’s listening to this crap? Ugh. I cannot understand….
Ryan Wiley DID try to go right to her and debate her points. She labeled him a troll and set her fans on him.
Gee, was it really over a year ago when the whole ‘I get to be public, you should talk to me privately or you’re creating drama’ attitude got summarized with Pick up What Phone?
My, how time flies when the arguments don’t change and the arguers refuse to learn from experience. Or, more to the point, are learning from the wrong experiences.
I’m sorry I’m new to comments and don’t know how to quote people properly, but UnknownEric the Apostate, the fact that Ryan Wiley DID address her debate points and was then mocked by Jaclyn’s friends, to Jaclyn’s amusement and approval, is a glaring inconsistency with what she claims she does and wants. I can’t tell if she’s being disingenuous, or just totally ignorant.
@10: Indeed, and it’s common enough that we need one of those snappy Latin phrases starting with “Argumentum…” to identify the fallacy of: “You’re angry with me, therefore I’m right”!
Bells: That’s what I was trying to say, but you said it more clearly. 🙂
Why is this person disturbing my zen?
If she has a problem with someone, why can’t she just approach them directly instead of engaging in verbal diarrhea on YouTube???
She makes her own drama.
It’s interesting wondering who actually comes and reads these articles aside from the people who come to laugh at your lot and your crusading, if you can fucking call it that. What a joke. I’m embarrassed for Jaclyn even posting a link up like this to read the lame “article” or the equally stupid comments from the mouth-breathers who eat this shit up. Hilarious.
The “truth hurts” fallacy? It’s a form of affirming the consequent. It can be formalized like this:
1. If what I said is the truth, you will have a negative reaction to it.
2. You have a negative reaction to what I said.
3. Therefore, what I said is the truth.
It relies on the hidden assumption that there are no other reasons to have a negative reaction to some statement.
P.S. Any idea why links don’t show up in preview? I hope it shows up when I post.
Are you looking in the “right” place for the link? The styling is odd and links are positioned not where expected, they float left
Racial and gay stereotypes offend people. Does Glenn also believe that means those stereotypes hit the nail too close to the head?
When atheists are stereotyped as being untrustworthy, that offends me. Does Glen think that means it’s true?
This woman is an ignorant buffoon.
Eamon Knight @28:
Not only is it bad logic, it isn’t even consistent. If it was true than clearly the feminist contingent of atheists are entirely correct judging by the bile spewed their way on a daily basis. Glenn herself has now issued two separate rant videos about how awful they are in just a couple of days. Sounds like she is pretty angry which means she is wrong by her own logic.
@Eamon
30 minutes of furious googling didnt come up with a catchy latin phrase – there goes our shot at internet immortality.
I think you make a mistake by taking Jaclyn seriously. She is an internet personality, not an intellectual. Her intent is likely to get sponsors and make $$ so she can (continue?) doing this as a job (with which I do not have a problem). Via this context, you can see why she doesn’t really care what others think although, to be fair, she’s admitted when she’s been wrong more than once.
Of course she’s wrong about feminism(s); like so many other knee-jerkers, she creates a straw person so she can knock it down. Yes, I have a problem with her contribution to the ignorance of feminisms. However, I’ve learned that it is pointless to argue with such people who have made up their minds, partially because feminisms have become so complex that the average person cannot absorb the ideas in short conversations. Of course, it is also because so many people refuse to unlearn the nonsense from elementary school that we are “all created equal” and, therefore, they ask, “why are people talking about race, class, gender, sexuality, etc.”? I’ve had success as an ally in describing white privilege to my fellow straight white dudes, but not so much with feminist theories.
I’m always concerned when women take these hard-line positions against feminisms. But, when our unfair system works for somebody — and they haven’t studied feminist theories — I guess it’s harder to see the systemic lack of fairness towards those who aren’t straight white-males.
Well, I realize she’s not an intellectual, and that what she’s doing is working very well for her in terms of popularity and (I assume) $$ – but I don’t think it follows that it’s a mistake to take her seriously as a source of harm.
Here’s the thumbnail version of that: we want atheism to become more accepted, which requires its becoming more visible, which requires more people openly atheisting. If atheism keeps becoming more and more linked to sexist misogynist assholes and anti-feminists – well, that’s what it will become, and that would be bad.
Like, imagine if the Civil Rights movement had become more and more linked to sexist misogynist assholes and anti-feminists starting around 1960. That would have been terrible.
I agree with Ophelia @38 about protecting atheism’s image, but another good reason to respond to people like Glenn is that, if we want to combat some of the misconceptions about feminism or other issues, you can’t just ignore the people propagating them. It’s a good instinct to want to ignore the silliest of your opponents and seek out the best of the “opposing” arguments, but you ignore the “dumb but popular” opposing arguments at your peril.
Which is basically why Glenn, and PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne, and even Richard Dawkins I think once or twice, have addressed Ray Comfort’s idiotic stuff about evolution and atheism. Or Ken Ham’s. Or… geez, there’s a long list, isn’t there?
@Eric
Her intent is likely to get sponsors and make $$ so she can (continue?)
Can we please stop assigning intent in this manner – we dont like it when people say that for
“our side” – lets not do it unless we have evidence.
The most charitable reading of this is that Glenn means to say that the respectful response would be to don a wig and record a YouTube meta-parody of her position using questionable analogies. It’s pretty clear if you read far enough into the subtext and make some unfounded assumptions about her motivations. We don’t have to assume the worst, here.
This could be a real learning moment for you, Ophelia. Maybe it’s time you reconsidered your lack of ill-conceived parody videos.
If you ever change your mind about that and need some help with half-assed analogies involving animals and possibly submarines, feel free to reach out to me privately via Facebook or Twitter. Since you don’t actually know who I am, just send your message to Kevin Bacon. I’ll get the request eventually.
Wait…I just watched the first few minutes of this video, and she’s actually citing John Gray’s Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus? Seriously? Good god.
There’s a lot of dishonesty there. I have never said you shouldn’t mock bad ideas — I do that all the time! — but that you should mock the actual ideas. I have never said anything about her appearance, all of my comments have been on the quality of her arguments.
She likes to whine about how awful Atheism+ is, but I notice she fails to mention a single specific problem.