momastery
December 7, 2012
3:38 pm
avatar
Coach Clodhoppers
Feline Porklord
Meows: 2539
Snarking Since:
February 28, 2012

Well no wonder she and Kelle are friends. They both think they and their "inner lights" are the best gifts they can possibly give. And if you're going to give an actual gift, not the inner flashlight of Kelle and Glennon, it would be great if you could buy Bloom or a Pass It On shirt, proceeds of which give back to your favorite gifts, Kelle and Glennon! drool

How do their heads not explode from the self-absorption? 

January 25, 2013
4:40 pm
avatar
gimmechocolate
Cat
Meows: 15
Snarking Since:
November 16, 2012

Glennon's Monkees make Kelle Hampton's fangirls look sane. The latest from Goddess Glennon: her book is available for preorder. In just a day or two its already at number 1 puke

Of course Glennon is much too humble to promote herself, so her sister wrote this up to announce the book preorder to the monkee masses:

I was forced to put G in a one day Momastery time out because her distaste for anything that smells like promotion was threatening to ruin the perfectly fabulous time we are about to all have together.  But sister-promotion is a basic tenant here at Momastery, and what G does whenever she sees a sister doing something good and true and smart, so here I am.

As much as I hate that whole group, it is marketing genius. Sister does the unpleasant stuff while Glennon remains the saintly, humble leader. It's too bad that the crazy monkees outnumber the people that have encountered the true Glennon, or at least the ones that are brave enough to speak of it. This blogger made the mistake of questioning the Momastery post that went viral and made Glennon famous. He was attacked in the comments by the crazy monkees and when his wife posted a comment from their computer he was accused of posting under an alias. His wife even messaged Glennon on FB with their phone number so she could call them and see it was two people posting, not one.

And so I responded by letting Glennon know that she was wrong in her accusations. And meanwhile my wife messaged Glennon on facebook and gave her our number so she could verify for herself that I was not posting as two people.

But the cowardly / avoidant Glennon and her cowardly avoidant sister never called, and they never retracted their false allegation! (Predictable.)  Instead they BANNED me from posting on Momastery, while Lilliputian little monkee after Lilliputian little monkee tried to take cheap shot after cheap shot at me.  And then I employed a few countermeasures of my own and bypassed their little ban and I posted several brief yet brilliant and extremely civil and munificently magnanimous comments (considering the comments that these monkees had made to me) to several of my detractors.   The brilliance and munificence of my additional comments was clearly too much for them to handle, and so in order to save face, they did what any weak organism would do: they swept the whole shebang under the rug: they deleted their posts, my comments (including my original and incredibly wise and perceptive comment), as well as many of the angry little monkee’s furious little posts of fury.

I read a similar story on another small blog where the blogger just questioned Glennon about her post on Trayvon Martin. She was attacked by the Monkees and then all of it was deleted. This is becoming a habit for G to simply delete anything remotely unpleasant or judgmental; she did it on her FB page when she used her holiday helping hands event to get her followers over 5k and she routinely does it in the blog comments. She even deleted a comment saying that her momastery shirts were ugly. Thou must not disagree with Glennon or question Glennon.

These women are crazy. Glennon is her own cult, and they can't even see that all of this is carefully orchestrated to sell the book. She's been promoting other motivational authors on her FB page and I see she's being promoted in return by some of those authors. Her motto is that "Love Wins" -  in this case, greed and deception are winning.

 

 

January 25, 2013
4:58 pm
avatar
Jo Bethersonton
Expert Hamcat
Meows: 563
Snarking Since:
February 4, 2012

gimmechocolate said
 

As much as I hate that whole group, it is marketing genius. Sister does the unpleasant stuff while Glennon remains the saintly, humble leader. It's too bad that the crazy monkees outnumber the people that have encountered the true Glennon, or at least the ones that are brave enough to speak of it. This blogger made the mistake of questioning the Momastery post that went viral and made Glennon famous. He was attacked in the comments by the crazy monkees and when his wife posted a comment from their computer he was accused of posting under an alias. His wife even messaged Glennon on FB with their phone number so she could call them and see it was two people posting, not one.

And so I responded by letting Glennon know that she was wrong in her accusations. And meanwhile my wife messaged Glennon on facebook and gave her our number so she could verify for herself that I was not posting as two people.

But the cowardly / avoidant Glennon and her cowardly avoidant sister never called, and they never retracted their false allegation! (Predictable.)  Instead they BANNED me from posting on Momastery, while Lilliputian little monkee after Lilliputian little monkee tried to take cheap shot after cheap shot at me.  And then I employed a few countermeasures of my own and bypassed their little ban and I posted several brief yet brilliant and extremely civil and munificently magnanimous comments (considering the comments that these monkees had made to me) to several of my detractors.   The brilliance and munificence of my additional comments was clearly too much for them to handle, and so in order to save face, they did what any weak organism would do: they swept the whole shebang under the rug: they deleted their posts, my comments (including my original and incredibly wise and perceptive comment), as well as many of the angry little monkee’s furious little posts of fury.

Ew. It's really gross of her to do that. 

 

BUT. I skimmed that guy's response post to Glennon's Carpe Diem post that you linked and I found it even grosser. The gist seems to be that we should try harder to appreciate even the shitty moments because one day our kids could be dead like the kids in Sandy Hook. That's the worst kind of emotional fearmongering and I hate it. When you are tired or overwhelmed or you don't like something — those feelings are valid and you shouldn't feel guilty for feeling them. He's contributing to the guilt and piggybacking on a more popular blogger's post AND a national tragedy for pageviews. AND STILL basically saying the same thing Glennon said in her post. Yuck. 

January 25, 2013
5:06 pm
avatar
gimmechocolate
Cat
Meows: 15
Snarking Since:
November 16, 2012

I didn't even get all the way through his whole post. What I got from it was that when she posted after Sandy Hook, it was the exact opposite sentiment of her viral post and he questioned her change of views. Of course it would help to see exactly what his initial comments were, if they were so obnoxious then I'd probably delete to, but since G's site is squeaky clean of all negativity, there's no way to know if he deserved to be deleted and banned. That's what I object to, and many of the things she's deleted from her FB page and other blog comments were mild, not even criticisms but just questions asking why things were done a certain way. Nope, not even going to address that, just hit delete.

Well, I object to that and the promotion of her as queen of all goodness and humility. Just come out and say you are promoting your book! Sister doesn't need to step in and do that for her. Its just such a production and her 50k minions are eating it up.

January 25, 2013
5:11 pm
avatar
Jo Bethersonton
Expert Hamcat
Meows: 563
Snarking Since:
February 4, 2012

I don't see it as a contradiction at all. I think he's stretching. In her Carpe Diem post, Glennon says that you shouldn't let people make you feel guilty for not enjoying the little shitty moments of parenting. After Sandy Hook, she posted that she wanted to be with her family and that we all need to try harder to be our best selves and love each other. One doesn't necessarily or even logically cancel out the other. 

 

Shannon Lell says in the comments of John's post that his rambling reeks of ego and jealousy. I agree. He needs get his "incredibly wise and perceptive" (in his OWN WORDS!) bullshit off my internets. 

 

I don't take kindly to blogger censorship and I still think it was lame of her to ban him but it seems like this guy had a bone to pick with her that wasn't actually based on reality and wasn't willing to let it go. He is also master of the wall of text. I wouldn't want that shit clogging my comment section either. 

January 25, 2013
5:23 pm
avatar
gimmechocolate
Cat
Meows: 15
Snarking Since:
November 16, 2012

I'm not saying he's not full of shit. I'm just more annoyed with the huge bloggers like Kelle and Glennon with their massive following of maniac fans shutting people down the instant they are questioned, while portraying themselves as only in this blogging business for love and peace when it is all a carefully planned marketing scheme. If I took the time to read his post, which I didn't because it was a novel I had no interest in, I'm sure I'd agree with you completely as far as that content. I didn't mean to sound like I was agreeing with anything in his post; I pointed it out because of the fact that it was another instance where either you praise her or you're banned.

January 25, 2013
5:30 pm
avatar
Jo Bethersonton
Expert Hamcat
Meows: 563
Snarking Since:
February 4, 2012

gimmechocolate said
I'm not saying he's not full of shit. I'm just more annoyed with the huge bloggers like Kelle and Glennon with their massive following of maniac fans shutting people down the instant they are questioned, while portraying themselves as only in this blogging business for love and peace when it is all a carefully planned marketing scheme. If I took the time to read his post, which I didn't because it was a novel I had no interest in, I'm sure I'd agree with you completely as far as that content. I didn't mean to sound like I was agreeing with anything in his post; I pointed it out because of the fact that it was another instance where either you praise her or you're banned.

Totally agreed! 

January 25, 2013
5:33 pm
avatar
gimmechocolate
Cat
Meows: 15
Snarking Since:
November 16, 2012

I should have said that I hesitated quoting him in the first place, because I do agree he's obnoxious and full of himself. I have no doubt that if his comments are anything like his posts on his blog, he gets banned quite often. Even if you take him out of the picture, Glennon has deleted completely non-obnoxious comments if they even slightly question her or doubt her. Probably would've been better for me to quote those, but since they were deleted I couldn't.

January 25, 2013
5:34 pm
avatar
LadySybil
Expert Hamcat
Meows: 818
Snarking Since:
November 20, 2012

Am I the only one irrationally annoyed at the husband drama that just…went away? And now everything is hunky dory and lovely? If she wasn't going to go into specifics (and not saying she should have, but the amount she did give away was annoying), she should have kept it private. Or just said there was a family issue going on and been vague.

I still think it's suspicious that that all hit the fan when the book was about to come out, and now that she's #1, life goes on. Ugh.

February 5, 2013
12:44 pm
avatar
realtruelove.wordpress.com
Kitten
Meows: 1
Snarking Since:
January 26, 2013

Hello Jo Bethersonton (Jo) and gimmechocolate (GC),

 

I just finished reading a very interesting article that someone else posted elsewhere here on GOMI, titled “In Defense of GOMI” (http://getoffmyinternets.net/in-defense-of-gomi-2/).    Have either of your read it?  It’s a very good post.  Well-worth the read.  And it’s in line with how and why I write and post and respond to people as I do. 

 

Here’s my abridgment of the piece—

 

“These women didn’t know how to write, didn’t think critically, didn’t even address constructive criticisms in their increasingly moderated comment sections. It began to really bother me when their prevailing attitude was one of ‘what I say is right, and only what I say is right, and any and all disagreement with me is wrong and bullying.’ . . . [There is] the larger role that I think GOMI plays, one in which it serves as a sort of checks and balances for the blog world at large. There is a big difference between bullying and criticism and I think the general consensus (at least around here…) is that GOMI criticizes far more than it bullies. We are not a perfect community, but most of us mean well. All we’re asking for is some intelligent discourse in a place where we can bring up thoughts and commentary without fear of moderation, something which most blogs don’t allow for anymore. . . .  I’m tired of hearing, ‘If you don’t like it, then don’t read it!’ when really all I didn’t like was one small aspect of your blog. Maybe I think you can be a better writer, a more interesting blogger, a deeper thinker—someone I actually want to read again. Maybe I think that your presentation comes across as dangerous, perhaps with misleading statements or harmful inaccurate information, and I want to point that out for the greater good. Maybe you said that 2 plus 5 equals 13 and I want to let you know that it actually equals 7.

“Criticism, when used correctly, is an important and valuable part of society. We are criticized by parents, friends, teachers, bosses, fellow employees, stranger, etc. I don’t think there is any job out there that doesn’t come without some form of assessment at some point in a career, and blogging, whether you like to admit it or not, is a job. Criticism helps us to evaluate and adjust and without we would never change—even if that change is for the better. A lot of people don’t like critiques because it means that someone doesn’t like 100% of what you presented to them and confronting that can be scary or challenging. Occasionally, though, when people do take criticism into consideration, they become greater for it. . . .  GOMI is like the professor of blogs, just trying to help its students improve so that the next generation doesn’t get even dumber.

“Getting rid of GOMI won’t get rid of the criticism. It will pop up in another forum, on another website, back in your moderated comments, or in your inbox. If you don’t want to hear it, stop blogging. Don’t put yourself out in public and expect it to be all sunshine and roses, because the fact of life is that there will always be dissenters. Learn from them, even if it’s just learning to accept that they have a different point of view. You will become better as a result, I promise.”

 

So Jo & GC, I read your comments, your exchange above, and my first thought is: why bother?  You have both, within the span of few snarky curmudgeonly comments, defined yourselves as being prejudicial and unthinking—Jo more so than GC, Gc seems to need Jo’s approval.

 

So why bother?

 

Intelligent thought and real criticism takes time and space—a “novel” or “wall of text” post or comment as you two seem to very blithely and prejudicially want to dismiss anything I or anyone else writes that’s longer than a paragraph or children’s story.

 

So why bother? 

 

 “Think before you speak. Read before you think.” ― Fran Lebowitz

 

“The person who doesn’t read good books has no advantage over the person who can’t read them.”

 

“A mind is a terrible thing to waste.”

 

Except of course that you two are likely not the only two people in all the world reading this forum and these comments and then clicking on the above links and visiting my blog.

 

My blogs are for thinking and discussing—for critical thinking.  You two—Jo & GC—may dismissively think that I am “obnoxious” and “full of myself” and that I mansplain and write “wall of text” posts and comments, but there’s always a flip side to allegations and accusations such as those.  People who know how to think—people who are critical thinkers—don’t resort willy-nilly to name-calling as you two have done.  Because what it shows is a lack of real thinking, a lack of care, on your part.  It shows that the dismissive name-callers are really just interested in venting emotionally and justifying their own prejudices and biases and feelings of dislike, irritation, annoyance, et cetera—and not really investigating these and seeing if they’re accurate, warranted, legitimate.  

 

But the name-caller is not interested in really thinking critically or in having an actually discussion or learning something new or expanding his or her mind.

 

Maybe neither of you are interested in that—in thinking deeply, critically, in having a real discussion—and we all know that Glennon isn’t either (so you have that in common with her), but maybe some of the people who read this GOMI forum are interested in thinking critically, and maybe they too have experienced Glennon’s lack of hospitality and her immaturity firsthand are looking for a thoughtful place to discuss their own ideas.

 

They may not find it here, not if snarkiness is the rule and real critical thinking (see above excerpt) is the exception.

 

But they will find it on my blog.

 

Or perhaps all of the people who have been clicking over to my blog in the past two weeks are just curious.  Maybe they’re searching for something.  Or maybe they’re not and they’re rubberneckers and they’re just looking to be entertained and see yet another flame war.  Who knows?

 

But I am writing this to let you know, JO & GC, and anyone else reading, that if you want to engage in an actual discussion of the good and ill of Glennon and momastery and her platitudinal approach to “love,” or even if you want to discuss and debate something that I have written, I will be happy to do so.

 

For example, I happy to discuss and debate, Jo, your contention that I’m engaging in “emotional fearmongering” with my post.  (I’m not.  Life is suffering.  That’s the first noble truth that the Buddha laid out.  “Life is difficult” wrote M. Scott Peck at the beginning of his very wise book “The Road Less Traveled.”  “Human life begins on the far side of despair” wrote the existentialist philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre.  What you seem to be talking about, Jo, as an alternative to what you call “emotional fearmongering” and what I would characterize as living with eyes wide open or living in reality, is living in denial.  And I have written/commented as much to Glennon one more than one occasion in reference to her regrettable “Don’t carpe Diem” post, and why that post was just such awful advice.  Thoreau went to the woods to live more deliberately, to suck out all of the marrow of life, and not when he came to die, discover that he had not lived.  But most people nowadays go to the mall or a pub or a sports bar instead of the woods, most people want to read gossip magazines and watch the telly and shop at Target and wear yoga pants, most people want to live comfortably instead of deliberately.  Most people are leading lives of quiet—or not so quiet—desperation.  Most people would rather go through life feeling angry, bitchy, cranky, short-tempered, unappreciative, ungrateful, and annoyed, rather than deal with their own underlying fear of their own mortality and fleetingness.  And it’s understandable.  Our own and others’ mortality and impermanence is a lot to deal with.  But just because something is difficult to face and deal with and scares the crap out of us, doesn’t make it less true or mean that we’re committing an act of “emotional fearmongering,” bwaaahh. . . .)

 

But if snarkiness and dismissiveness and name-calling is all you two (Jo & GC) have to offer, then arguably you are missing the seeming intent of a forum such as this—at least its nobler intent.   There is stuff that is arguably wrong with what Glennon is doing and how she (and her sister Mandy Doyle) deal with criticism and contrary opinions.  There is stuff that is arguably very wrong with the way she is using the word “Love.”  There is stuff that is arguably very wrong with her choice of reading material (can anyone say strong confirmation bias??)

 

And this is all stuff that likely and beneficially ought to be discussed and debated .

 

And perhaps there’s much that’s wrong with my straightforward arguably tactless approach?  Maybe there are serious flaws in my idea of what Love is and is not.

 

Real conversation, real debate, and real criticism, is what will help.  Not snarkiness and name-calling.  And not banning people from commenting.

 

And lastly, I wouldn’t care about what Glennon had done to me if she hadn’t claimed again and again to be all about “love winning” (Love Wins Love Wins Love Wins Love Wins, Namaste Monkees, Love Wins) and being able to “Do Hard Things” (uhm, what hard things? Squaring your shoulders up and dealing legitimately and honestly with criticism and your critic is a hard thing; banning a person isn’t), and if she hadn’t written this piece last summer— http://momastery.com/blog/2012/07/30/progress/  —and just reposted it (in a very self-congratulatory and narcissistic way).

 

From her post:

 

“He starts talking to me, in monologue form, and it is clear right away that he plans to get a few things off of his croupy chest. To me. He is grizzly. He is angry. He is, how shall we say…not my type. Something tells me to close my book and listen anyway.  I resent that Something. But I do. I close my book and look at my new teacher and listen.”

 

And “in the back of my head, I hear, ‘It has been said to love your friends. But don’t even jerks do that? I say – Love your enemies and those who think differently than you’.”

 

And “something told me to stay open. Ride this out. I kept listening.”

 

 And “Then I went in for the love kill.  Look at us, friend. We did it. We made it through two hours. I learned a little about you, you learned a little about me. The rightiest and the leftiest. Maybe in the whole WORLD. We didn’t yell, You taught me a lot. . . .

 

And “our world views usually come from the world we’ve experienced, not from the goodness of our hearts. If you’ve experienced the world as loving and generous – that is how you will live, in abundance. But if you’ve experienced the world as uncaring and cold, then it only makes sense that you will continue to live with that world view. . . . It’s really why we need to take care of each other. Listen to each other. Undig our heels. Surprise each other. We really do.”

 

All very fine sentiments and very nice-sounding ideals to aspire to.  And that’s what Glennon is advertising herself as—this little spitfire embodiment of Love winning.  That post is essentially her mission statement.   This is what she’s putting herself out there as and advertising herself to be—the embodiment of Love Winning and of Being Able to Do Hard things.

 

Except, of course, there are a few crucial differences between the man on the plane and me.  She was basically trapped next to the guy for two or three hours.  She had her son right next to her (and incentive for her to be on her best role modeling behavior). 

 

And most of all he wasn’t criticizing her.

 

She’s not trapped next to me.  And I am very critical of some parts of her point of view and her understanding and use of the word “love.”

 

So apparently in order for Glennon not to be a jerk you have to be trapped next to her on a plane and she has to have her son with her.  Otherwise she has more than enough wiggle room to let what’s worst and weakest in her run free and run the show, and essentially be a hypocrite.

 

For all her faults, Glennon is at least *trying* stand for something—Love, Peace, Vulnerability (Life Unarmed)—even though a good portion of the time she's *way* off the mark in her understanding and implementation / application of these ideals.  (What she really seems to be about is Charity Winning and Random Acts of Kindness Winning, and adding more than a little self-promotion to the mix.  But Love—the day labor, the work of real love—loving her enemies and adversaries and opponents and her own kids and such, when it’s not convenient, Glennon does not do well, if at all.)

 

Honestly, that Glennon mixes “love” with self-promotion is in my opinion one of the lesser problems with her and Momastery.  That she is an outright hypocrite when it comes to her views on love and how she deals with people who disagree with her *is* a significant failing on her part.  It shows in no uncertain terms that she does not know what Love is or how to love.

 

How she dealt with me and my perhaps very very valid criticisms (the way she’s acting suggests that they are more than valid and spot on), and how she stayed silent while so many of her followers (monkees) jumped in with their feeble name-calling and impotent attempts to lay a little smack down on me shows exactly what Glennon Doyle Melton (and her sister, Mandy / Amanda Doyle) is about and what she stands for.  Instead of showing a little spine and standing up and saying something along the lines of, “Hey, you know what, I may not like what he wrote, I may not appreciate his tone or his lack of tack, but just like Tim on the airplane, John is still deserving of "Love"; so I'm gonna let love win; I'm going to welcome this seemingly jerk of a person into our safe place, and just like angry guy Tim on the plane that I won over, I'm going to seek first to understand, really listen to what he's saying, see if maybe I haven't misread his tone, see if I can’t be the example of how to deal with criticism and an opposing point of view, see if I can’t soften his hard heart and win him over through my soul force.  I'm going to try to deal with him legitimately, with love and logic and kindness and goodness, just like I did with that croupy grizzly angry hard-hearted mean old man Tim on the plane, and not act like a closed-minded little flibbertigibbety twit and take the easy way out, and get emotionally flooded and hijacked by all this, and just stand by like a nincompoop while my sycophantic followers jump in and name call him in an insipid effort to protect me. I don't need to be protected, gosh darn it; I'm Glennon Doyle Melton; and I’m effin’ fierce, damn it; hear me roar.  I'm like Gandhi and MLK Jr and Jesus and Annie Lamont all rolled into one yoga pants wearing little girl in an adult body, and I'm gonna let this little light of mine shine."

 

But that's not what she did.   She didn’t do anything remotely resembling what she did for that guy on the plane.  (Again, I guess you have to be trapped next to her for 3 hours and not criticize her  or threaten her with your intelligence in order to get that level of treatment.  Tim was a walk in the park compared to me.  So if you’re just a lone voice crying out in the Internet wilderness and she doesn’t like what you’re saying, then Glennon shows her true colors and her intolerance—that she is only person enough to love those who are easy to love or who are seated next to her on a 3-hour flight.)

 

Instead, Glennon acted in a completely avoidant way (and has continued to do so).  She got all happy and celebratory and peed herself silly when she thought I was posting also as someone else (as if I would need to! My words and my point of view speak very clearly for themselves—though perhaps verbosely and pontificatingly to those with double doses of inferiority complexes and low self-esteem), and she posted her ridiculous little tribute to Ace Venture / false accusation (“It was just one mean man, lovies, posting as two people.  Einhorn is Finkle, monkees, and Finkle is Einhorn!  Sister Lobster and I have exxxorcised the demons.  We can all now safely go about our business of group hugs and high fiving each other for chronically slacking off as parents and wives. Love Wins, Monkees!  Praise Jesus!  We Can Do Hard Things—like exxxorcise mean old demons and ban them from our happy little blog, Monkees.”). 

 

And then Glennon showed even more of her true colors when instead of calling me or my wife and getting the facts straight, she deleted all of the controversial posts, including her false accusations, and then banned me from her blog, and never apologized! 

 

WWJD?  WWGandhi DO? WWMLKjrDo?   What would Socrates do?  Something much much different from what little old Glennon Doyle Melton would do.

 

So I know firsthand how hypocritical, confused and cowardly / avoidant she is.  And thus I also can see how fraudulent her use of the words “Peace” and “Love” and “Vulnerability” (“Life Unarmed” – not a chance; she’s hiding behind her little walls.  A real life unarmed is about not having the sorts of walls she still has, not banning criticism or those who would criticize her.  A truly vulnerable and unarmed life is about trying to deal legitimately and courageously with your critics) and “Namaste” are, as well as how empty and shallow her phrases "Love Wins" (it's random acts of charity and self-promotion that win; but so many of her followers seem so desperate to believe in something, anything, that like good little sycophantic followers they just follow G's lead on virtually everything.  There seems to be so little independent thought and conscience among them!) and "We Can Do Hard Things" are (which is very laughable; that phrase—“We Can Do Hard Things”— is actually a “reaction formation.” G and many of her monkees *can't* actually do hard things, but they think that if they all join hands and keep saying that phrase over and over again enough—and snuff out all dissenting voices—then through that incantation /slogan they’ll actually come to believe that they really can do hard things [irrespective of the fact that they never actually do anything that’s hard] and that will make them all feel inflated and better about themselves and how uncourageous and avoidant and committed to the path of least resistance the majority of them are).

 

So in closing, Jo & GC, and anyone else reading, if making shallow snarky comments about Glennon and her monkees (as well as me) instead of dealing substantively with her hypocrisy (and what I’ve written), then thanks but no thanks, I’m not interested (and perhaps read that article I excerpted at the beginning of this wall of txt comment), and I’ll gladly get the eff off your forum.

 

But if you want to engage in a thoughtful discussion or debate about any of this, or about Glennon and momastery, then I’d be happy to participate in such a discussion or debate.

 

Kindest regards to you both (Jo & GC).

 

John

February 5, 2013
10:20 pm
avatar
GracieJane
Feline Porklord
Meows: 1215
Snarking Since:
July 22, 2012

HOLY SHIT, JOHN. NO ONE READ ALL THAT.

 

realtruelove.wordpress.com said
Hello Jo Bethersonton (Jo) and gimmechocolate (GC),

 

I just finished reading a very interesting article that someone else posted elsewhere here on GOMI, titled “In Defense of GOMI” (http://getoffmyinternets.net/in-defense-of-gomi-2/).    Have either of your read it?  It’s a very good post.  Well-worth the read.  And it’s in line with how and why I write and post and respond to people as I do. 

 

Here’s my abridgment of the piece—

 

“These women didn’t know how to write, didn’t think critically, didn’t even address constructive criticisms in their increasingly moderated comment sections. It began to really bother me when their prevailing attitude was one of ‘what I say is right, and only what I say is right, and any and all disagreement with me is wrong and bullying.’ . . . [There is] the larger role that I think GOMI plays, one in which it serves as a sort of checks and balances for the blog world at large. There is a big difference between bullying and criticism and I think the general consensus (at least around here…) is that GOMI criticizes far more than it bullies. We are not a perfect community, but most of us mean well. All we’re asking for is some intelligent discourse in a place where we can bring up thoughts and commentary without fear of moderation, something which most blogs don’t allow for anymore. . . .  I’m tired of hearing, ‘If you don’t like it, then don’t read it!’ when really all I didn’t like was one small aspect of your blog. Maybe I think you can be a better writer, a more interesting blogger, a deeper thinker—someone I actually want to read again. Maybe I think that your presentation comes across as dangerous, perhaps with misleading statements or harmful inaccurate information, and I want to point that out for the greater good. Maybe you said that 2 plus 5 equals 13 and I want to let you know that it actually equals 7.

“Criticism, when used correctly, is an important and valuable part of society. We are criticized by parents, friends, teachers, bosses, fellow employees, stranger, etc. I don’t think there is any job out there that doesn’t come without some form of assessment at some point in a career, and blogging, whether you like to admit it or not, is a job. Criticism helps us to evaluate and adjust and without we would never change—even if that change is for the better. A lot of people don’t like critiques because it means that someone doesn’t like 100% of what you presented to them and confronting that can be scary or challenging. Occasionally, though, when people do take criticism into consideration, they become greater for it. . . .  GOMI is like the professor of blogs, just trying to help its students improve so that the next generation doesn’t get even dumber.

“Getting rid of GOMI won’t get rid of the criticism. It will pop up in another forum, on another website, back in your moderated comments, or in your inbox. If you don’t want to hear it, stop blogging. Don’t put yourself out in public and expect it to be all sunshine and roses, because the fact of life is that there will always be dissenters. Learn from them, even if it’s just learning to accept that they have a different point of view. You will become better as a result, I promise.”

 

So Jo & GC, I read your comments, your exchange above, and my first thought is: why bother?  You have both, within the span of few snarky curmudgeonly comments, defined yourselves as being prejudicial and unthinking—Jo more so than GC, Gc seems to need Jo’s approval.

 

So why bother?

 

Intelligent thought and real criticism takes time and space—a “novel” or “wall of text” post or comment as you two seem to very blithely and prejudicially want to dismiss anything I or anyone else writes that’s longer than a paragraph or children’s story.

 

So why bother? 

 

 “Think before you speak. Read before you think.” ― Fran Lebowitz

 

“The person who doesn’t read good books has no advantage over the person who can’t read them.”

 

“A mind is a terrible thing to waste.”

 

Except of course that you two are likely not the only two people in all the world reading this forum and these comments and then clicking on the above links and visiting my blog.

 

My blogs are for thinking and discussing—for critical thinking.  You two—Jo & GC—may dismissively think that I am “obnoxious” and “full of myself” and that I mansplain and write “wall of text” posts and comments, but there’s always a flip side to allegations and accusations such as those.  People who know how to think—people who are critical thinkers—don’t resort willy-nilly to name-calling as you two have done.  Because what it shows is a lack of real thinking, a lack of care, on your part.  It shows that the dismissive name-callers are really just interested in venting emotionally and justifying their own prejudices and biases and feelings of dislike, irritation, annoyance, et cetera—and not really investigating these and seeing if they’re accurate, warranted, legitimate.  

 

But the name-caller is not interested in really thinking critically or in having an actually discussion or learning something new or expanding his or her mind.

 

Maybe neither of you are interested in that—in thinking deeply, critically, in having a real discussion—and we all know that Glennon isn’t either (so you have that in common with her), but maybe some of the people who read this GOMI forum are interested in thinking critically, and maybe they too have experienced Glennon’s lack of hospitality and her immaturity firsthand are looking for a thoughtful place to discuss their own ideas.

 

They may not find it here, not if snarkiness is the rule and real critical thinking (see above excerpt) is the exception.

 

But they will find it on my blog.

 

Or perhaps all of the people who have been clicking over to my blog in the past two weeks are just curious.  Maybe they’re searching for something.  Or maybe they’re not and they’re rubberneckers and they’re just looking to be entertained and see yet another flame war.  Who knows?

 

But I am writing this to let you know, JO & GC, and anyone else reading, that if you want to engage in an actual discussion of the good and ill of Glennon and momastery and her platitudinal approach to “love,” or even if you want to discuss and debate something that I have written, I will be happy to do so.

 

For example, I happy to discuss and debate, Jo, your contention that I’m engaging in “emotional fearmongering” with my post.  (I’m not.  Life is suffering.  That’s the first noble truth that the Buddha laid out.  “Life is difficult” wrote M. Scott Peck at the beginning of his very wise book “The Road Less Traveled.”  “Human life begins on the far side of despair” wrote the existentialist philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre.  What you seem to be talking about, Jo, as an alternative to what you call “emotional fearmongering” and what I would characterize as living with eyes wide open or living in reality, is living in denial.  And I have written/commented as much to Glennon one more than one occasion in reference to her regrettable “Don’t carpe Diem” post, and why that post was just such awful advice.  Thoreau went to the woods to live more deliberately, to suck out all of the marrow of life, and not when he came to die, discover that he had not lived.  But most people nowadays go to the mall or a pub or a sports bar instead of the woods, most people want to read gossip magazines and watch the telly and shop at Target and wear yoga pants, most people want to live comfortably instead of deliberately.  Most people are leading lives of quiet—or not so quiet—desperation.  Most people would rather go through life feeling angry, bitchy, cranky, short-tempered, unappreciative, ungrateful, and annoyed, rather than deal with their own underlying fear of their own mortality and fleetingness.  And it’s understandable.  Our own and others’ mortality and impermanence is a lot to deal with.  But just because something is difficult to face and deal with and scares the crap out of us, doesn’t make it less true or mean that we’re committing an act of “emotional fearmongering,” bwaaahh. . . .)

 

But if snarkiness and dismissiveness and name-calling is all you two (Jo & GC) have to offer, then arguably you are missing the seeming intent of a forum such as this—at least its nobler intent.   There is stuff that is arguably wrong with what Glennon is doing and how she (and her sister Mandy Doyle) deal with criticism and contrary opinions.  There is stuff that is arguably very wrong with the way she is using the word “Love.”  There is stuff that is arguably very wrong with her choice of reading material (can anyone say strong confirmation bias??)

 

And this is all stuff that likely and beneficially ought to be discussed and debated .

 

And perhaps there’s much that’s wrong with my straightforward arguably tactless approach?  Maybe there are serious flaws in my idea of what Love is and is not.

 

Real conversation, real debate, and real criticism, is what will help.  Not snarkiness and name-calling.  And not banning people from commenting.

 

And lastly, I wouldn’t care about what Glennon had done to me if she hadn’t claimed again and again to be all about “love winning” (Love Wins Love Wins Love Wins Love Wins, Namaste Monkees, Love Wins) and being able to “Do Hard Things” (uhm, what hard things? Squaring your shoulders up and dealing legitimately and honestly with criticism and your critic is a hard thing; banning a person isn’t), and if she hadn’t written this piece last summer— http://momastery.com/blog/2012/07/30/progress/  —and just reposted it (in a very self-congratulatory and narcissistic way).

 

From her post:

 

“He starts talking to me, in monologue form, and it is clear right away that he plans to get a few things off of his croupy chest. To me. He is grizzly. He is angry. He is, how shall we say…not my type. Something tells me to close my book and listen anyway.  I resent that Something. But I do. I close my book and look at my new teacher and listen.”

 

And “in the back of my head, I hear, ‘It has been said to love your friends. But don’t even jerks do that? I say – Love your enemies and those who think differently than you’.”

 

And “something told me to stay open. Ride this out. I kept listening.”

 

 And “Then I went in for the love kill.  Look at us, friend. We did it. We made it through two hours. I learned a little about you, you learned a little about me. The rightiest and the leftiest. Maybe in the whole WORLD. We didn’t yell, You taught me a lot. . . .

 

And “our world views usually come from the world we’ve experienced, not from the goodness of our hearts. If you’ve experienced the world as loving and generous – that is how you will live, in abundance. But if you’ve experienced the world as uncaring and cold, then it only makes sense that you will continue to live with that world view. . . . It’s really why we need to take care of each other. Listen to each other. Undig our heels. Surprise each other. We really do.”

 

All very fine sentiments and very nice-sounding ideals to aspire to.  And that’s what Glennon is advertising herself as—this little spitfire embodiment of Love winning.  That post is essentially her mission statement.   This is what she’s putting herself out there as and advertising herself to be—the embodiment of Love Winning and of Being Able to Do Hard things.

 

Except, of course, there are a few crucial differences between the man on the plane and me.  She was basically trapped next to the guy for two or three hours.  She had her son right next to her (and incentive for her to be on her best role modeling behavior). 

 

And most of all he wasn’t criticizing her.

 

She’s not trapped next to me.  And I am very critical of some parts of her point of view and her understanding and use of the word “love.”

 

So apparently in order for Glennon not to be a jerk you have to be trapped next to her on a plane and she has to have her son with her.  Otherwise she has more than enough wiggle room to let what’s worst and weakest in her run free and run the show, and essentially be a hypocrite.

 

For all her faults, Glennon is at least *trying* stand for something—Love, Peace, Vulnerability (Life Unarmed)—even though a good portion of the time she's *way* off the mark in her understanding and implementation / application of these ideals.  (What she really seems to be about is Charity Winning and Random Acts of Kindness Winning, and adding more than a little self-promotion to the mix.  But Love—the day labor, the work of real love—loving her enemies and adversaries and opponents and her own kids and such, when it’s not convenient, Glennon does not do well, if at all.)

 

Honestly, that Glennon mixes “love” with self-promotion is in my opinion one of the lesser problems with her and Momastery.  That she is an outright hypocrite when it comes to her views on love and how she deals with people who disagree with her *is* a significant failing on her part.  It shows in no uncertain terms that she does not know what Love is or how to love.

 

How she dealt with me and my perhaps very very valid criticisms (the way she’s acting suggests that they are more than valid and spot on), and how she stayed silent while so many of her followers (monkees) jumped in with their feeble name-calling and impotent attempts to lay a little smack down on me shows exactly what Glennon Doyle Melton (and her sister, Mandy / Amanda Doyle) is about and what she stands for.  Instead of showing a little spine and standing up and saying something along the lines of, “Hey, you know what, I may not like what he wrote, I may not appreciate his tone or his lack of tack, but just like Tim on the airplane, John is still deserving of "Love"; so I'm gonna let love win; I'm going to welcome this seemingly jerk of a person into our safe place, and just like angry guy Tim on the plane that I won over, I'm going to seek first to understand, really listen to what he's saying, see if maybe I haven't misread his tone, see if I can’t be the example of how to deal with criticism and an opposing point of view, see if I can’t soften his hard heart and win him over through my soul force.  I'm going to try to deal with him legitimately, with love and logic and kindness and goodness, just like I did with that croupy grizzly angry hard-hearted mean old man Tim on the plane, and not act like a closed-minded little flibbertigibbety twit and take the easy way out, and get emotionally flooded and hijacked by all this, and just stand by like a nincompoop while my sycophantic followers jump in and name call him in an insipid effort to protect me. I don't need to be protected, gosh darn it; I'm Glennon Doyle Melton; and I’m effin’ fierce, damn it; hear me roar.  I'm like Gandhi and MLK Jr and Jesus and Annie Lamont all rolled into one yoga pants wearing little girl in an adult body, and I'm gonna let this little light of mine shine."

 

But that's not what she did.   She didn’t do anything remotely resembling what she did for that guy on the plane.  (Again, I guess you have to be trapped next to her for 3 hours and not criticize her  or threaten her with your intelligence in order to get that level of treatment.  Tim was a walk in the park compared to me.  So if you’re just a lone voice crying out in the Internet wilderness and she doesn’t like what you’re saying, then Glennon shows her true colors and her intolerance—that she is only person enough to love those who are easy to love or who are seated next to her on a 3-hour flight.)

 

Instead, Glennon acted in a completely avoidant way (and has continued to do so).  She got all happy and celebratory and peed herself silly when she thought I was posting also as someone else (as if I would need to! My words and my point of view speak very clearly for themselves—though perhaps verbosely and pontificatingly to those with double doses of inferiority complexes and low self-esteem), and she posted her ridiculous little tribute to Ace Venture / false accusation (“It was just one mean man, lovies, posting as two people.  Einhorn is Finkle, monkees, and Finkle is Einhorn!  Sister Lobster and I have exxxorcised the demons.  We can all now safely go about our business of group hugs and high fiving each other for chronically slacking off as parents and wives. Love Wins, Monkees!  Praise Jesus!  We Can Do Hard Things—like exxxorcise mean old demons and ban them from our happy little blog, Monkees.”). 

 

And then Glennon showed even more of her true colors when instead of calling me or my wife and getting the facts straight, she deleted all of the controversial posts, including her false accusations, and then banned me from her blog, and never apologized! 

 

WWJD?  WWGandhi DO? WWMLKjrDo?   What would Socrates do?  Something much much different from what little old Glennon Doyle Melton would do.

 

So I know firsthand how hypocritical, confused and cowardly / avoidant she is.  And thus I also can see how fraudulent her use of the words “Peace” and “Love” and “Vulnerability” (“Life Unarmed” – not a chance; she’s hiding behind her little walls.  A real life unarmed is about not having the sorts of walls she still has, not banning criticism or those who would criticize her.  A truly vulnerable and unarmed life is about trying to deal legitimately and courageously with your critics) and “Namaste” are, as well as how empty and shallow her phrases "Love Wins" (it's random acts of charity and self-promotion that win; but so many of her followers seem so desperate to believe in something, anything, that like good little sycophantic followers they just follow G's lead on virtually everything.  There seems to be so little independent thought and conscience among them!) and "We Can Do Hard Things" are (which is very laughable; that phrase—“We Can Do Hard Things”— is actually a “reaction formation.” G and many of her monkees *can't* actually do hard things, but they think that if they all join hands and keep saying that phrase over and over again enough—and snuff out all dissenting voices—then through that incantation /slogan they’ll actually come to believe that they really can do hard things [irrespective of the fact that they never actually do anything that’s hard] and that will make them all feel inflated and better about themselves and how uncourageous and avoidant and committed to the path of least resistance the majority of them are).

 

So in closing, Jo & GC, and anyone else reading, if making shallow snarky comments about Glennon and her monkees (as well as me) instead of dealing substantively with her hypocrisy (and what I’ve written), then thanks but no thanks, I’m not interested (and perhaps read that article I excerpted at the beginning of this wall of txt comment), and I’ll gladly get the eff off your forum.

 

But if you want to engage in a thoughtful discussion or debate about any of this, or about Glennon and momastery, then I’d be happy to participate in such a discussion or debate.

 

Kindest regards to you both (Jo & GC).

 

John

drool

February 5, 2013
10:48 pm
avatar
Respect privacy and lies OH MY
Hamprince of Meowtonia
Meows: 6341
Snarking Since:
April 11, 2012

LOL I had no idea (still don't) who he is and what the f he's talking about.  Is there a shorten version?  And holy hell, I thought his comment was long, his blog posts are even longer.  If you want me to read something that long, it's got to be interesting and make sense!  I was thinking I was trapped on a plane having to listen to someone.

February 5, 2013
11:17 pm
avatar
LadySybil
Expert Hamcat
Meows: 818
Snarking Since:
November 20, 2012

↑ Back to Top ↑



Opinions expressed by forum commentators are their own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the site admins or Get Off My Internets. Get Off My Internets makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this forum and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. Click here for GOMI's Comment Policy.