I'm a short-haired lesbian in pants (and pain)
Yep. What she said. Oh...and I hate men, too:
LOL. Okay, Alex, I've given you the attention you were crying for now. In fact, in convening with some of my fellow panelists over your blog post and your photo, none of us recall even seeing you in the audience, let alone "shooting looks" your way. When you grow up and realize the world doesn't revolve around you, I would love to talk.
UPDATE: I suppose I reacted too quickly and overly sensitively to Alex's post. FYI, she has amended it since (majorly), without the more acceptable blogging protocol of strikethrough or transparent amendment. Oh well, that's her prerogative.
That's all I'm going to say on this subject. ;)
13 Comments:
When is Riya going live? It's been such a tease these last months.
I guess I might be reading a revised version of Alex's original post or something, but I saw nothing in it that was deserving of such derision from a smart, well respected person such as yourself. In fact, many of the points she made about the ISSUES were ones we discussed at WoolfCamp and in the blog afterwards.
I 'get' the snarkiness of the post, but come on, do you really need to resort to a personal attack rather than addressing her substantively? Is there something else that I am missing here that would provide better context to your post? Was her email to you and the other panelists before SxSW that far out in left field?
Well Chris, other than the fact that she totally misrepresented the discussion that went on in that room. None of us were 'separatist' or blaming. In fact 3 out of 5 of us said that we had our own butts to kick, 2 said we need to start building a strong community and supporting one another and one made a comment that she would like to see some more pro-active measures in the male technology community in welcoming women. We all agreed that diversity is important and, although I didn't get a chance to get into my discussion about femininity and misconceptions, I did make that point on the panel.
Alex's post was a personal attack on, not only the women on the panel (of which I was one), but of the women in the room. She assumed we didn't answer a question because the woman was attractive...as if we had some sort of agenda.
Funny, but Liz, the organizer of WoolfCamp was deeply upset and posted her reply on badgerbag as well.
I know that I should have taken the high road here, but fuck it. I have enough battles to fight out there, not having to worry about these sorts of attacks from fellow women. I mean, really, she felt like everyone was staring at her? Duh. People stare at an attractive girl. Personally, I looked at her photo and thought, "I've never seen her before in my life", then passed it along to my fellow panelists who were equally perplexed. Yet, she claimed being 'shot glances'? Man.
As it happens, Chris, the post in questions has been significantly altered to remove references to lesbians in short hair and pants.
Without following generally accepted blog or web etiquette of noting an update or alteration.
If you had read the original posts, which followed complaining about being sterotyped with an immediate litany of sterotypes about women and lesbians, you might understand the swift and stern response. (I have really learned my lesson for the first time about taking snapshots of a site I write about. I just haven't encountered such covert editing before.)
But even without those remarks, what you may be missing is the untruths in what she was saying. Even articulate or eloquent misrepresentation is still misrepresentation. And deserves to be called out.
Major edits in the original document.
Just for grins and giggles, do a technorati lookup on Miss Girl's weblog.
What I'm not understanding from everything I'm reading (and I didn't see her original post) is if she said something offensive to you and she took it out, why you would still continue harp on that? What is more offensive to you - what she is saying now after editing,or what she took out? What is your exact conflict now? Are you listening at all to each other or you just intent on remaining angry over something she's no longer saying? Because I think it's OK for people to change their posts (and minds), especially if they change it to not be snarky or childish as you say (like if she did reference the panel as being all angry lesbians and took it out - wouldn't that be a good thing for you? Wouldn't you rather have her realize that is not something good to say and be open to change or are you angry that she changed that and isn't sticking to her original snap judgement?)
Because from all your other posts, you seem bigger than pulling a high school girl thing which this seems to be. If the panel was trying to kick butts and hers was kicked (by her editing maybe or not using lesbian? I'm not sure I don't know what the changes are), wouldn't you want that? Even if you both are disagreeing on the outcome of the panel, isn't your job as a panel speaker and the goal of BlogHer to get women to help one another instead of have this kind of stuff going on?
Did you two email each other things we're not seeing or talk in person at the panel? Is there backstory? Because it seems you're shutting down a conversation that could be really beneficial to you both.
JHC...what did I get myself into?
Baseline: It's my blog and I had my say. I am now done with this conversation because I think it was useless in the first place. I will not take down my post because I live and die by my sword. But what is the issue now? Erm...is it that I ever posted anything about this unknown pretty girl in a dress (and I read her original, unedited post, not the subsequent one and that was what I responded to) or that she edited her post so I should, too? Or does the issue have anything to do with the actual issues of visibility or stereotyping or whatever?
Man. The ironic part here is that I am getting lambasted for almost everything I said on that panel and then in this subsequent post, but somehow I'm holding back women?
I didn't know it was my duty to be controversial on that panel. I thought I was supposed to talk about my experience and open up the floor to discussion. I mean, sheez, that's what all of the other panels did. I wish I knew the expectations goin into all of this. I would have put on a damned fine show.
Geez, I'm not bigger than anything. I'm human. I react sometimes overly emotionally irrational. I say stupid stuff. I fall short of big expectations. Totally. And now I'm reacting and over-reacting again. I'm reading through the 'reviews' of our panel, like we were totally disappointing. I'm just learning that there was a whole other 'kickass' panel chosen and that we could 'never fill those shoes'. Man, good thing I didn't know that ahead of time.
Egad. I thought the discussion was interesting. We encouraged audience members to speak out. I hated that we had a table and a raised platform between us and the audience. I wanted to remove that and we were told we couldn't. I had no clue that we were supposed to be some sort of revolutionary panel. Man, that would have been good. History means everything.
Anyway...keep it coming. Bring it on. I still think this argument is silly and takes us away from the original point.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll go back to talking about crap I understand.
Since Tara is a friend, I felt comfortable in challenging her on this. More so since I feel that we should all work hard to not make personal attacks in pubic discussions - even when it gets to the point of a disagreement over a particular event and different people's perspectives on what went down.
But I stand more strongly against intolerance and derogatory speech, so if these are the things Alex wrote in her original post, then I certainly understand Tara's response here. So instead of making assumptions, I like asking questions, which have been answered and understood.
There is a valid discussion within this mess on the nature of feminism in modern times that has some insightful and valid points on all sides. In my view, HUMANS who 'get it' should all be striving towards equality, tolerance, respect and love for all human beings regardless of any differences - even these differences of opinion. Unfortunately, the public school system here in the states (and most places around the world) do a very poor job of preparing us all for fighting for our beliefs. This makes it all too easy to resort to namecalling and personal attacks which are really the easy way to dismiss someone - even easier when they really deserve it and are behaving like a twit.
Am I perfect at living this ideal? No, but I strive for it everyday and am willing to throw down a mea culpa when I am wrong or act like a nimrod - or to fight for my beliefs if necessary.
Since I did not hear the panel, I can't comment on the 'she said/she said' going on here, but I do believe that the extremes of feminism that fight for women's rights above that of men are no better than the stupid men who fought against a woman's right to vote and kept our school's segregated. Diversity of opinion and perspective is by far a greater value to all intellectual and emotional pursuits than having a bunch of people who are all the same discussing how much they agree with each other on everything and how everyone who does not agree 'sucks'. Besides, no one 'type' of person is on the whole smarter or better than another race/creed/religion/sex - though there are certainly some proclivities that have been identified.
The other issue arising here is a bigger one we have not yet explored fully. I don't think this is a good case to use for the discussion - but Sara does bring up some good points above. I think the general rule is that errors or mistakes get strikethroughs and updates, but I have never seen that 'rule' applied to an entire post that gets edited for tone and content. (if you can point to a good selection of them that have been edited in that manner from multiple people that would be great to know) If Alex realized the error of her ways and edited what she wrote, then that is good news - battle won. If she (Alex) also decides to write a mea culpa or apologize for what she said in the earlier post that is even better.
It is a great and important question to ask concerning how bloggers should handle an edited blog post - especially when the original one was written with emotionally charged and potentially offensive content. I think an apology is in order and would hope the discussion could be turned back to the all important points being addressed by the panel in the first place.
I was there in the audience at your panel and it was thought-provoking and useful and I'm *very* glad I was there. Nobody is going to change the world in an hour-long panel, and anyone who was coming to your panel just to see a good fight was looking for entertainment, not inspiration.
I'm not sure what to make of Alex -- the worst part for me is that there was a shred of perspective in her whole awful, original post that I actually agreed with.
I do know one thing for certain -- women attacking one another is definitely NOT useful. In my opinion, Alex f*d up any chance she had of creating an actual conversation about this. And that's a shame, because she probably has something useful to add.
But then, any post in which the poster repeatedly reminds us of their exceptional attractiveness is just something I find more humorous than offensive. I don't remember seeing her in the room either, but geez... SXSW was swarming with more drop-dead gorgeous women than I've ever seen at a tech conference! My partner Bert picked you out of a sea of 600 during my session... ; )
Thanks Kathy. Thanks Chris. Thanks Elisa. Thanks Shelley. Thanks Sara.
Yes. She had very valid points. Bummer that she didn't see that I've talked about the same darned thing many times. Oh well.
We could have had a brilliant conversation. I would have loved her to raise her voice in the audience. We would have even agreed with most of what she was saying (unless she threw in that mean stuff).
Kathy, you are so right. And my bad for only concentrating on the negative.
Sigh. Okay. I will write about this some more and I welcome your feedback when I do.
There isn't much more I can say here as Chris (Heuer) and I feel the same on this subject manner and I think he summed it up beautifully (as usual) – so thanks Chris.
However, I do think it important to note a lot of Alex's post did hit home with me as I felt the same way coming out of one of the WoolfCamp sessions about identity and gender of blogs.
The difference though, I believe, is I chose to address my concerns in a non-combative manner. Doesn’t make my words any less powerful – but I was able to ask a hard question without shutting down the opportunity to have further dialogue on the subject matter. And even though I had opinions that were opposite of many in that room, the women who responded respected that and chose to engage me in a discussion in the same respectful manner so we all were better for it.
I guess it also helped there was an easy forum to do so as I had posted it on my blog, which accepts comments, and also cross-posted it on the WoolfCamp blog to ensure those who I wanted answers from could easily find it and leave comments there. Maybe one thing we need to do is ensure conference holders provide easy forums (panels can have their own blogs) in the future to assist open dialogues between the panelists and attendees? Who knows. Maybe this wouldn’t matter at all, as in the end, the point is not the forum in which to discuss the topic, but the tone of the blogs to start…
So the question comes down to could these posts have been handled differently? Absolutely. Is any one way better than another? That could also be up for discussion, but in my heart I believe so. Yes, everyone handles things differently and emotion will always get the better of us, but we should strive as a community to treat each other with love and respect (whether man or woman) and push back the urge to throw personal attacks at each other.
"We could have had a brilliant conversation." I am curious to know if you ever emailed with each other? When her post came out, did you contact her about it to have a discussion or did you choose to just remark on your site?
I keep reading that people are upset with her edits and think she should apologize for what she said and has done/changed, but I also feel that you have the same responsibility in terms of you did something wrong as well by taking the conversation to an area it didn't have to go and doing it publicly. If you have talked with her, then it changes things, I think. If you never contacted her, I don't think you have a very valid stand to be so angry and to talk about discussing things and missed oppurtunities.
If you want to be the bigger person, you have to be it on more levels than just saying she was wrong and calling her out. You'd have to have talked with her and left some stuff out of your comments just as you wish she had in hers.
I think both sides are pretty interesting and I think both of you have the ability to be really well spoken. I don't necessarily think this is the best out of either, though.
Tara, I wanted to thank you for your thoughtful POV and clear thinking on our panel. I only wish more people could have heard what you were saying there. I wish, too, that people could understand that this blog is your space and you are allowed to be snarky, annoyed, etc., w/o having to answer to anyone else's ideals of bigger personness. We do all have a high opinion of you, of course, so I can understand folks wanting you to stand above the fray. Sadly, sometimes one must enter the fray to diffuse it.
As I noted at Liz's blog, I find it ironic that in a session about obstacles to women's visibility a woman chose to make pejorative comments that have been used for decades to marginalize women and keep them quiet. It's not only tiresome and passe, it is unproductive. One's gorgeousness (or lesbianism, as if these must be mutually exclusive) aside, Alex contributed little to the discussion in her original tantrum and remains intellectually dishonest as long as she does not follow the common practice of alerting her readers to updates, especially those which significantly alter not only the tone but the message of her original post.
What offends me most is not Alex's hyper-self-referential footstomping, but that we entered this discussion in good faith, not purporting to have all the answers, not purporting to represent the breadth and depth of all female experience, and not suggesting that women with long hair (!) were excluded from our best hopes for increased visibility for all. That she or anyone else would twist honest intentions into a no-win grudge match is disappointing, to say the least.
In happier news, I heard so many compliments and kudos that day for sparking a challenging discussion; it was heartening. Many thanks for making our panel a success. You rock.
Post a Comment
<< Home