Pop Feminist
(The following is in response to Church Militant’s latest blog, which critiqued the Pop Feminist’s latest article.)
What Do They Teach Them At Those Schools?
Rejoice, friends, for I have been called out!
Church Militant, whose work I rebutted here, ruffled their feathers and shot back a conspiracy theory, entitled: “Franciscan University Pipeline to Patheos.” (You may follow the link above to their Facebook page, and from there give them your business if it pleaseth thee.)
The article, primarily a means of garnering clicks, which is how most blogs are paid, is really another excuse to mention Rebecca Bratten Weiss, for whom Church Militant reserves a particular obsessive hatred. Which can only be answered, flippantly, with this:
The gist of the article’s argument seems to be:
1) Franciscan University grads have gotten work at a Catholic blogging site; and
2) Franciscan University grads love cussing.
So, let’s take this motherforking argument apart.
It’s a Conspiracy!
The first part of CM’s complaint is that a number of Steubenville grads, or friends, or friends of friends – CM doesn’t seem to be too strict in its own argument – have gotten work at Patheos Catholic. The underlying argument behind this being:
1) If Steubenville grads are giving work to Steubenville grads, this is an outrage!; and
2) We can see what ideologies they’re teaching at FUS at the moment by examining the content of the articles of Steubenville alumni who graduated years ago.
Let’s take the first part first:
Everything is Connected
So, are there Steubenville grads blogging at Patheos Catholic? Yes.
In fact, one of the things that I value from my education at FUS is that it has a better alumni network than my fancy grad school, which grad school I attended in the hopes that it would yield me professional connections. Who would have supposed that FUS grads would be more generous out in the real world? I’ve founded theatre companies with FUS grads, collaborated on audio books with FUS grads, been interviewed by FUS grads, done consulting work for FUS grads…
In short, the people I met at Steubenville are some of the best and brightest I’ve had the pleasure to work with. I’m pleased to be blogging among other FUS graduates, here and across the blogosphere. If this sounds like an endorsement for my alma mater, it probably is. Or if this explains why I’m so disheartened to see Steubenville cave to the anti-intellectual alarmism of CM, it also is.
Her Hair is Full of Secrets!
Continuing to pull apart CM’s list of accusations – which, in part, is simply a list of public knowledge:
It’s hardly a secret that Bratten Weiss is an alumna and former professor of Franciscan University of Steubenville, and that her current position is as an editor and blogger for Patheos Catholic. I will also admit that I, too, am an alumna of FUS, and that it was through my stellar blogging on The Last Jedi that Bratten Weiss decided I’d be a good arts blogger here. I had the pleasure of meeting Bratten Weiss in real life at a Catholic conference here in New York City, although I knew her sister through the drama program at Steubenville, and once stood behind her sister holding her gloves for the entire length of a scene.
In the interest of full disclosure – an act of journalistic integrity which I credit to my education at FUS – I’ll admit that I’m Facebook friends with a few other bloggers mentioned in CM’s article thanks to professional ties, and that I once acted in Twelfth Night with Jenn Morson at Steubenville where we shared a few scenes, with me dressed as Feste the Jester for the amusement of the audience.
I’m afraid I was rather nervous about my first Shakespeare play, so I don’t recall whispering about taking down Steubenville and the whole of the Western World twenty years in the future while we were backstage. I’m pretty sure I was just constantly going over my lines. And if I’m being totally honest, I don’t think I exchanged above twenty words with the laudable Ms. Morson at FUS, although our professional work has since brought us into contact, in our shared desire to encourage our alma mater to be better at her mission.
But what did I learn at Steubenville that should recommend me to blog at Patheos Catholic?
A City on the Hill
What was beautiful about learning at Steubenville was the interconnectedness of thought across discplines I encountered there. The rhetoric I learned, the articles I had to pull apart, pointing out fallacies and backing up my arguments were mirrored in four years of reading the Great Books.
In every single one of my classes, I was challenged to think critically.
This critical thinking includes, for example, recognizing fallacious argumentation, such as those from the gadflies at CM. Offense intended.
For example, by the third paragraph, author Jim Russell writes this:
“…uber-feminist and consistently zany Franciscan University of Steubenville former adjunct professor Rebecca Bratten Weiss…”
Now Mr. Russell, being either a new addition to CM’s writing staff or merely a freelancer – having at the time of this publication only two CM articles to his name – may be forgiven for including such an ad hominem attack which utterly poisons the well. His editors, Christine Niles and Michael Voris however, should know better than to allow such blatant rhetorical blunders into what they purport to be good reporting. Since, as any student of critical thought will tell you, these attacks immediately undermine the argument of the author from the beginning, showing his biases upfront.
But let’s go on, pretending that Mr. Russell has not already discredited himself.
Alt-FUS?
In the third through fifth paragraphs, Mr. Russell asserts the following, which I will quote in full here:
Why does this matter? Because a number of the alum-writers are really what could be described well as members of the “alt-FUS” whose ideologies are causing major headaches on campus.
What ideologies are at work in the alt-FUS mindset? Three features have emerged. First, virtually everything discussed gets discussed through a political lens first, and faith second. Second, there is a distinctive attitude toward things homosexual that corresponds readily to the infamous “gay lobby” even Pope Benedict acknowledged was present at the Vatican (the writers can’t comprehend the fundamental problem of “gay identity” and mock and ridicule Catholics who do).
Third and most important at this moment, however, is the alt-FUS’ unswerving commitment toward defending vulgar and profane words and speech. This looms large on the FUS campus, which is dealing with the scandal and debate over FUS English Professor Stephen Lewis’ use of a pornographic and blasphemous book in class, a topic readily bleeding over into the alt-FUS bloggers’ posts.
To digress only momentarily, when I was reading Aristotle, I remember being rather frustrated at that great philosopher who spent something like twenty pages defining geometric shapes. I flipped pass paragraph after paragraph defining the word square to get to some juicy bit I could latch onto in the juvenile hope of dazzling my Great Books professor with insight deeper than: “Squares. Four equal sides. Pretty much it.”
Now, the reason why I bring this up is because what my Freshman self could not grasp at the tender age of 18 was why Aristotle was absolutely correct about taking the time to define the word “square.” By my Junior year of college, we finally came to the Enlightenment – a time period that, to my romantic mind, was largely filled with ridiculous wigs and revolution. (And inspired my current project which you can learn about here.)
What I discovered when delving into Locke and Hobbes and Rousseau and Voltaire, however, shocked me:
These so-called philosophers refused to define their terms.
I had gotten so accustomed to everyone from Aristotle to Acquinas boring me to tears by defining what they meant by “square” that I’d simply presumed everyone knew that the first thing you need to do when constructing your argument is to define your terms.
You can probably follow where I’m going with this.
To begin with, what does “Alt-FUS” mean?
The term that Mr. Russell is attempting to coin is poorly defined, if it’s defined at all. I will give him credit that he makes clear that, to him, “Alt-FUS” bloggers are apparently:
- More political than religious
- Pro-gay(?)
- Defenders of vulgar and profane speech
But let’s look at the term itself. It’s clearly playing off of the “alt-right,” a term which was coined in 2008 by Paul Gottfried in a speech about what he called the “alternative right.”
In this case, by “right” Mr. Gottfried meant not directional (as in “alt-right” equals lefthandedness), but rather “right” as an epithet for Conservative political parties.
In this case, by “alternative,” Mr. Gottfried did not mean “opposite” – as in liberals being left-leaning are alternative to the right – but rather the “alternative” was an alternative, or extreme position on the political right.
One might argue that Mr. Gottfried would have been more exact if he had used the term “extreme right” instead of “alt-right” but semantics being what they are, “alt-right” is the term that caught on.
As a term, it has suffered from some question of what, exactly, it means. Until in 2016, Richard B. Spencer swept in to found Alternative Right and clearly align the phrase with nationalism and white supremacy.
As others pointed out, both nationalism and white supremacy were the cornerstone of another group: namely the National Socialists bent on Arian rule, which is to say the Nazis.
Strictly speaking from an aesthetic point of view, it’s almost shame that Spencer, et al, are determined to use the clunky moniker “alt-right,” when the term “Nazi” has so much swish.
But let’s look closer at whether Mr. Russell is coining a helpful phrase. If by “alt-FUS” Mr. Russell intends to align Steubenville Patheos bloggers with the ideologies of the alt-right, then he’s failing to begin with.
Certainly, I’ll admit that my fellow FUS alumnn engage with the world around us, including politics, which has currently dominated my own and my fellow bloggers’ feeds. (In this political climate, can anyone escape politics?) And I will grant that, as a term, “alt-FUS” and “alt-right” both engage in political discussion.
However, Mr. Russell asserts that every Steubenville grad is…not hating gays? He’s unclear about what exactly we all think about the “gay lobby” and “gay identity.” But the general gist is that apparently those who graduate from Steubenville are not hating gay people. I will, personally, admit that I do not hate my gay brothers and sisters. I cannot speak to my fellow FUS alumni. As for the alt-right, it is on public record that Richard Spencer opposes same-sex marriage, and in general I think it’s safe to say that most people equate the alt-right with an anti-gay agenda. In which case, the terms “alt-FUS” as gay lovers, and “alt-right” as gay haters, do not match up.
Finally, Mr. Russell says that the hallmark of every alt-FUS blogger is also “unswerving commitment toward defending vulgar and profane words and speech.” To which I would ask Mr. Russell to define his terms about what he finds vulgar and profane. Because while I don’t know whether it’s a tenant of the alt-right to never cuss…I find it pretty vulgar to talk about ethnic cleansing. And while it is far from profane, I do take exception to Mr. Russell’s and Church Militant’s unswerving commitment toward defending ad hominem and libelous speech.
I’ll go one further: the alt-right is well known to be anti-Semitic. A position that Church Militant itself has taken on more than one occasion. See their frequent cry of “Soros bucks!” And I think a quick flip through Patheos Catholic, whether from Steubenville alumni or not, will reveal that the most extreme “alt-FUS” blogger has nothing but esteem for our Jewish brothers and sisters. In which case, “alt-right” and “alt-FUS” most definitely do not match up. Althought “alt-right” and “Church Militant” do.
What Does Steubenville Stand For?
Let’s presume, though, for a moment that Mr. Russell meant “alt-FUS” in the same vein as Gottfried: which is to say, that “alt-FUS” bloggers are not alternative – or in opposition – to the ideologies we were taught at Steubenville, but extremists with what we were taught at Steubenville.
Strap in, folks. This part’s important.
A quick peek at Church Militant’s Steubenville coverage is confusing at best. Most of the time, Church Militant seems to think that FUS is a bastion of evil – which is to say that, according to Mr. Russell, any FUS alumn preaches politics – probably leftist – loves gay people, and cusses like a son of a bench.
However, last year when several alumni were covering the sexual assault scandals at Franciscan – or more accurately, the way FUS covered up or mishandled cases of sexual assault – Church Militant was there to bewail how unjust everyone was being to good old, completely holy, why would you say such things Franciscan University.
At that time, for a few months when it pleased CM’s agenda, FUS was a bastion of goodness. Which is to say, according to Mr. Russell, FUS never even heard of politics, hated all gays, and never said a naughty word, you Patheos dicks.
These past few months, of course, Church Militant seized upon a non-issue that was already solved over a year ago and came out swinging with a new video saying that Steubenville was “turning bad.” An article followed, accusing Prof. Lewis of teaching a “profane” book. A book he had already dropped from his curriculum. This was not sufficient for CM, who bullied FUS into making obsequious and public reparations. At which point CM posted a follow-up article rejoicing at their victory over Steubenville, and bringing FUS back into their holy fold.
Which means, of course, that it’s that time of the cycle for CM’s toxic love-hate affair with my alma mater to turn against Steubenville’s alumni again. This time labelling us – literally – as witches. (Not kidding.)
So the question is: if the “alt-FUS” bloggers are extreme versions of what FUS teaches…what does CM think Steubenville is teaching? Because in one news cycle we should be burning faggots in a fit of holiness, and in another news cycle we should be buggering everyone we meet. In one news cycle, as an extremist Steubenville grad, I could be on my knees with the windows blinded, ignoring the news cycle in favor of my umpteenth rosary, and in another I should be marching on Washington wearing a pink pussy hat.
When in fact, as an “alt-FUS”, extreme Steubenviller, I’m up ’til 2 am writing a detailed critique, defining my terms, and citing my sources, like a holy shirtballs motherforker.
The Purpose of Critique
What Mr. Russell and Church Militant fail to understand is exactly the thing that Steubenville taught me: the way to think critically.
The very thing that Mr. Russell and Church Militant fear is academic rigor.
The very thing that concerns myself and some of my fellow FUS alumni is that Steubenville will cravenly fall to the abuse cycle of CM, et al, rather than employing that very critical thinking that myself and my fellow alumni value.
What’s been curious to me after publishing my piece critiquing Steubenville’s demotion of Prof. Lewis, is the number of commenters who question whether The Kingdom was a good piece of literature.
It’s a tricky trap to fall into, and ancillary to the question at hand.
For example, I have reservations with fellow blogger Marie Kopp’s premise on the issue. Marie’s take is that since we read great literature that has withstood the test of time (such as Plato, Rabelais, etc.), which includes scandalous bits, we oughtn’t be getting our knickers in a twist over something like The Kingdom.
I agree with her in general, but her argument opens her up to exactly the counterpoint that The Kingdom is not great literature, and therefore ought to be dismissed. And the thing is, even from a cursory glance at secular critiques of the novel, The Kingdom does not look like great literature, and probably can be dismissed. In fact, we know Prof. Lewis used it in only one semester, and then dismissed it.
My issue is not with the book itself, but with CM’s continued misunderstanding of how literary criticism works.
Why would Prof. Lewis choose The Kingdom from all of literature to have students at Steubenville read? is it because he wanted his students to read about a Frenchman comparing porn and religion? Did he rub his hands, Mr. Burns-like, at the thought of scandalizing his students? No.
There are multiple reasons why texts are assigned at University. In the Great Books program, we’re reading the great thinkers – good, bad, zany – who influenced the thought processes of our society. We are looking at the history of ourselves. And therefore, it’s important to read Plato and Rabelais, even the naughty bits, in order to know where we came from, so that we might look at where we’re going.
The Kingdom is not a zeitgeist of a book. Despite its topping the best seller list, I hadn’t even heard of it before last week. The likelihood of Carrere’s novel standing the test of time is slim. Whereas Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter probably will be studied alongside Shakespeare and Camus for centuries to come.
Why then assign The Kingdom if it has little literary merit and is not part of the zeitgeist? Because its value lies in this: at the time it was assigned, it was on the best seller list. The students were in an upper level course, looking to move into grad school, where they would likely be expected to keep up with whatever topped the best seller list, and be capable of speaking critically and thoughtfully about trends in publishing. Perhaps those students planned to teach themselves, or to go into publishing, or to write the next best seller. In which case, studying a current best seller – particularly one that dealt with Catholicism – makes a considerable amount of sense. Study your market, your competition. Know what’s going on in your field.
Moreover, speaking from experience, I tend to learn more from “bad art” than from good art. I have, over the course of my career, purposely sought out truly terrible productions of plays I wanted to direct in order to see where the other guy went wrong. When I see art that’s perfect, I merely sit in admiration. I cannot critique it. But when I see art that’s flawed, I can sort out where they misstepped, and then when it’s my turn at bat, I can do better.
But The Kingdom included the profane! Yes, it did. And I hope that Prof. Lewis helped the students engage with that profanity in a thoughtful and critical way. Again thinking back on my own time at Steubenville, the places where I learned best was where my worldview was challenged. I slept through the semester studying the Early Church Fathers, because I didn’t understand why we had to spend two hours discussing – for example – Mary’s perpetual virginity when we all agreed she was perpetually a virgin. I didn’t know that I was being armed for precisely the semester when I’d encounter theology – or, for those students, a novel – that argued against her perpetual virginity.
Is this, as Mr. Russell purports, “unswerving commitment toward defending vulgar and profane words and speech?” No.
But it is an unswerving commitment towards defending the means of forming critical thinking skills in students of every age.
Critiquing the Critic
Lastly, I would be remiss if I didn’t pull apart the paragraph, rather flatteringly an entire paragraph, dedicated to yours truly. To pull the quotes that pertain only to your own Pop Feminist:
[T]hese bloggers are pretty long in the tooth compared to the alt-FUS newbies more recently arrived at Patheos Catholic. While other alt-FUS voices are in this chorus, two in-your-face examples come to mind, given their most recent posts defending the vulgar pornography and blasphemy found in the scandalous book that has caused this root ideology to be further exposed. Alt-FUS Marie Kopp (who writes with FUS alumna Jenn Riley at “Shoeless Banshee,” as in “wailing female spirit”) and Emily C. A. Snyder (“Pop Feminist”) give their editor Rebecca Bratten Weiss a run for her money…
First, I’m rather surprised to be called in-your-face, since most of my articles here are about art and watching entirely too much Netflix. But since I’ve written some socially conscious things, too – sigh, times being what they are – I suppose your face and mine are in lamentable proximity.
Also, I’d like to truly thank you for bothering to get my middle two initials in there. Too many people leave them out, and I need to distinguish myself on Google somehow.
Alas, I don’t drop the “F-bomb” sufficiently for that Mr. Russell to be able to lay that charge to me. But he does find reason to make exception to my defense of Prof. Lewis:
Alt-FUS ideologue Emily C.A. Snyder takes a similar approach in her post with the disparaging title “SCANDAL! Mary Has Genitalia! ‘The Kingdom,’ Church Militant, and Steubenville.” Snyder bewails the pearl-clutching “mob mentality” of those raising “internet pitchforks” over Professor Lewis’ lapse in judgment. But Snyder doesn’t think it’s a lapse. She thinks Church Militant’s coverage of the scandal is “click-baiting.” Snyder regales us with a disturbing explication of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s female anatomy, and she thinks “academic rigor” should absolve Professor Lewis. She calls FUS leaders “anti-academic, Puritan ‘Catholics'” (yes, the scare quotes around the word Catholic are Snyder’s).
Let me pull this apart.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary (I’ve always wanted to write that), an “ideologue” is:
An adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic. E.g., ‘a right-wing ideologue.’
Which given that I’ve been accused of being a leftwing liberal is hilarious. Similarly amusing, of course, is that Church Militant has proven themselves far more – and quite literally dogmatic. And as for uncompromising, well look no further than the way they keep beating this particular dead horse. However, I’ll admit that at least he didn’t call me “zany.”
I find it amusing and absolutely accurate that he labels my blog title “disparaging.” Because it is. Intentionally. Disparaging of Church Militant’s click-bait titles. As is the title of this essay. Purposely disparaging. An even better – and more accurate – descriptor would have been “ironic” or “satiric.” But it’s fairly obvious that Mr. Russell and the good folk over at Church Militant are not masters of either form.
The subsequent use of quotes is hilarious, since it turns the quotation marks into “scare quotes” (to quote Mr. Russell) rather than just, y’know, a quote. To compare my paragraph to his paraphrasing:
Myself: The post not only sent the usual suspects reaching for their pearls to clutch, but also resulted in mob mentality raising their internet pitchforks and demanding the removal of the educator in question, tenured Professor Stephen Lewis, from his post as English department chair.
Mr. Russell: Snyder bewails the pearl-clutching “mob mentality” of those raising “internet pitchforks” over Professor Lewis’ lapse in judgment.
To help Mr. Russell out, although it remove me from the alt-FUS since we are meant to be unswerving, I will admit that I employed metaphoric hyperbole to make my point. Not quite the same thing as his fallacies – but considering that CM did use mob tactics on social media to intimidate Franciscan into cowering before them…I’ll stand by my metaphors as apt. Heck, I’ll even bewail them.
Besides which: Mr. Russell then lays the most grievous crime at my feet.
I call out CM for click-baiting.
Get out your fainting couches!
(That’s metaphoric hyperbole, being used for satirical purposes. Which joke is now ruined because I had to spell it out for you. Sigh.)
But yes, I do think CM’s coverage of Steubenville, in fact, all their coverage of anything is laden with click-bait titles. On the one hand, as a professional who is also paid by the click (thank you, patrons!), click-baiting is a necessary evil of our current journalistic economy.
But on the other hand, given that CM dredged up this non-issue in order to attack Steubenville; given that they dedicated a whole video and a series of articles building click after click; given the whole cycle this past year with CM’s approach to my beloved alma mater, well…you bet your ash I’ll call you out for poor journalism in the name of the almighty dollar.
Was it a slow news day, Church Militant, that you decided a book that was already discontinued from the curriculum required the demotion of a professor you don’t know at an institution you don’t attend? Or is the “anonymous inside source” you constantly refer to in all your articles the same person who has a beef to grind with how s/he believes the school is being run? Your own personal Madame Defarge, intent on recreating Steubenville in their image? Discontent until every last professor conforms to their…ideology?
To return to Mr. Russell’s list of grievances:
Snyder regales us with a disturbing explication of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s female anatomy.
I get a kick out of how grandiose Mr. Russell’s language is. I’m “bewailing” and “regaling.” It’s like he’s gunning to get a sponsorship deal with Merriam-Webster. However, this sentence tells me that my initial supposition that CM’s actual outrage at The Kingdom was over Carrere’s scientifically accurate statement that Mary had a clitoris. And that the clitoris, which is part of the female anatomy – in fact, is part of Mary’s God-given genitalia, is – quote – “disturbing.”
Thank you for proving my argument.
I believe I’ve explained already why “academic rigor,” needless quotations and all, is something I will defend. And why it is a defense of a professor at a university doing his job. The fact that academic rigor at a university requires defending is the worrying bit. To go on:
“She calls FUS leaders ‘anti-academic, Puritan “Catholics”” (yes, the scare quotes around the word Catholic are Snyder’s).”
I actually had to go look up the quote in full context, his pull quote was so confusing. Here’s what I wrote:
I hope, I have long hoped, that FUS might recover itself from the current, anti-academic, Puritan “Catholics” who currently control the governing body, and return to the more purely, joyfully, intellectually rigorous and curious Catholicism that I experienced during my time there.
Right, so let’s have a basic understanding of punctuation here. If Church Militant cannot understand satire, nor criticism, nor academic rigor…let’s at least understand quotation marks.
Yes, I worry that the current governing body in danger: given the fact that they are still mishandling sexual assault cases while simultaneously demoting tenured professors for doing their job.
The demotion of professors for teaching students to engage critically with the world is, literally, anti-academic.
While the horror at the idea that Mary possessed a clitoris is a Puritanical worldview that shoves figleafs over the Sistine Chapel.
Quotation marks, meanwhile, can be used for many things. They can be used to actually quote someone, as I have done throughout this article. They can also be used to set apart a phrase in order to continue questioning the word, such as I have done when examining “alt-FUS” vs. “alt-right.” They can, as CM seems to exclusively view quotations, be used to scare the reader. (What does it mean that Mr. Russell presumes everything in quotation marks is scary? How does he read novels? He must be constantly hiding under counterpanes.)
Quotation marks can also be used to off-set a word to show that the author believes the opposite of the term being used. In this case, I believe that Puritanism is not integral – is in fact in opposition to – Catholicism. The scare is not around Catholicism, but rather to indicate my view that Puritans in Catholic clothing are not authentically Catholic after all. Mr. Russell and others may debate me on whether Puritanism is so opposed to the Catholic spirit as all that, but I hope there is no debate that quotations are not merely meant to elicit fear.
Although, if you’re reading this Mr. Russell, make what you will of this “Pop Feminist.”
Boo.
Phots and media courtesy of Church Militant, Mean Girls, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, The Princess Bride and Henry Enfield.
Thank you for reading this blog! If you’d like more content, or if you want to “scare” “journalists” at “Church Militant” you can support me directly by becoming my patron on Patreon.
- If you’re tired of all this politicking, as I am, you can also support my latest artistic endeavor: The Sable Valentine – a mystery podcast solved in real time set in an Enlightenment fantasy world.
- Or keep an eye out for my upcoming Arthurian duology, The Table Round and The Siege Perilous which will perform in New York City in October 2019.
- Or if you want more satire in your life, check out the audio book for my Jane Austen-meets-a-horror-novel-parody, Nachtsturm Castle narrated by FUS alumna, Suzanne Fortin.
- Or if you want a Catholic high fantasy, Tolkien-esque novel full of beauty, get a cup of tea and curl up with my book, Niamh and the Hermit
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In