Category: Weblogging

Categories
Diversity Weblogging

Everything to do with her being a woman

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

The comments that made me so angry yesterday were attached to a posting Doc Searls wrote.

It would seem that a weblogger who works for Microsoft was being parodied, and not in good, gentle fun, either. This bit of school yard bullying was further compounded by an article by Andrew Orlowski in the Guardian. He wrote:

Of course, you’ll argue: we’re just being mean. Online journals give a billion people who can’t write and who have nothing to say the means to publish. It’s good!

To which I reply: here’s a mechanism which allows a billion people who can’t sing, can’t write a song or make an original beep, and have nothing to express, the means to deafen me with their tuneless, boring cacophony.

There is nothing I dislike more than some elitist who thinks to him or herself, “I am hot shit”, and proceeds to prove it by dumping the cold, icy water of disdain and disparagement on anyone that might, just might, prove that what they really are is a wet match rather than a blazing torch.

You could compare the parody and the original weblog. You could, except Beth Goza took down her weblog.

Doc defended Beth, a move that wasn’t easy because he knows both Beth and Andrew. I admire him for taking a stand as a professional journalist taking another professional journalist to account for using his position within a professional publication to attack what is nothing more than a personal weblog. Sure Beth may have talked about her job at Microsoft, but most of us talk about our jobs. And our cats. And the TV shows we watched last night. No call for this behavior. None at all.

However, lest you think I was so angry because of the article and the parody, I was a bit, but not enough to send me out of the house. What really made me angry was the following, written by Dave Winer in the comments:

Why such a chivalrous defense of Beth?
What did Orlowski say that was so terrible?

Does it or did it matter to you that this is about a woman?

As one who gets it every day, I gotta say it’s not cool that Doc stands up for her, when the criticism was so mild, and when she used blogs for her marketing work at MS. For crying out loud, where is the offense?

Where does sex enter into this? If we’re only allowed to defend those of the same sex, or our defense of another human being is questioned because of their sex, then this medium is truly become a sexist one, in the worst way.

I responded with any angry comment yesterday, one that Doc rightfully called me on.

Today, when I was calmer, I wrote the following:

Sorry, Doc. You’re right — this posting wasn’t meant to be objective, and my anger got away with me in my original response.

Defending another person is a noble thing to do. But bringing that person’s sex into this, out of the blue, was totally out of line. As I tried to say in my original email (and was angry, as you can tell by my use of Sullivan), if we’re going to introduce ‘sex’ into discussions such as these, then this medium has become a sexist medium.

I don’t know this person and I wanted to defend her, and not because of her sex. It was because she had a personal weblog where she talked about her company, true, but where she also talked about her cat, and her thoughts, and just stuff. A weblog. And this so-called journalist invoked an extreme elitist attitude and made fun of her, in the worst school yard bully manner. And there is nothing I despise more than a bully.

Your defense was appropriate if you think he was being mean, and personal. There was never an issue of sex in this.

By introducing Beth’s sex, Dave demoted this issue to one of ‘boys and girls’, and that was wrong, very wrong. To Beth, to Andrew, to you, to your readers.

If we introduce sex into this story, then could we also say that if Beth hadn’t been a woman, the parody site wouldn’t have been created? Or could we say if Beth hadn’t been a woman, Andrew wouldn’t have written the article, or been so cutting?

But there was no evidence that Beth’s sex had anything to do with the parody site, or Andrew’s article. So why introduce her sex when it came to her defense?

And because the issue of sex was raised, will you be more hesitant to defend a woman in the future? Will you question your motives for defending a woman? Will you ask yourself, “Am I doing this because the person deserves my defense? Or am I doing it because she’s a woman?”

I saw your defense as a professional journalist taking another to account for attacking what is nothing more than a personal journal. Sex had nothing to do with it. Well, not until it was introduced, and then it shadowed everything that occurred before and after.

We all have strength enough to fight our own battles. But if we all do so alone, then what’s the point of reaching out, with connecting with each other? When we defend another, we’re not helping just the person we’re defending — we’re helping ourselves.

Sorry for comments, and comment length. I think you were right to defend Beth and I think well of you for the act. And I agree, I hope she does get another weblog, and continues writing exactly like she does.

Dave responded immediately with a comment that said, I have to quote from memory, that Doc’s response had “everything to do with her being a woman”, and that I was out of line, and owed him a retraction and an apology for my statement yesterday. I would quote it, but the comment was pulled. Instead, a new one was added containing the following*:

Shelley, thank god you’re not the final arbiter of right and wrong.

Further, I went to the trouble of talking with Doc and asking questions and listening to the answers. We’ve been friends for fifteen years. For you to presume you know what’s right and wrong between Doc and myself is the height of arrogance.

Why don’t you ask some women what they think, if you’re full of it or not. The comments you make about me, here and elsewhere are so off the wall. I was going to demand an apology, but changed my mind. No one takes you seriously Shelley, you might want to check that out. You’ve got a few syncophants who post in your comments, but people cut you a wide path because you’re so abusive and so unfair in your criticism. I can tell you I do that, and I’ve heard it from a bunch of other people. For what it’s worth.

I do owe an apology, but it was to Doc for flaming him yesterday. That was wrong, and uncalled for, and I apologize. And I do owe Doc and Dave an apology for questioning Doc’s objectivity when it comes to their friendship and communication with each other. That was out of line.

As for the rest:

Dave, this isn’t a school yard, but I recognize another bully when I see one. The playground may be bigger, and you may be using a keyboard instead of dirt and fists, but you’re still a bully. You call people names and then cry ‘foul’ when they respond. You demand courtesy and give none. You expect fair play, and then hit below the belt. You have power, and you’re not afraid to use it to hurt others. You say the nastiest things and then you delete them after the damage has been done. When people take you to account for outrageous statements, you start clutching your chest and say, “I’m still a sick man”.

Out of curiosity, I went to your weblog, Dave, and used Google to search on “sorry” and “apologize” within your weblog postings. What an interesting experience. Have you ever apologized for anything you’ve said?

Dave, you don’t have to worry about any of my ‘sycophants’ defending me, me being a woman and all. I can handle my own battles with the likes of you. And I won’t fight my battles by lurking in others comments, either.

*Note: the comments I quoted of Dave’s have been edited. Again.

Categories
Weblogging

Gently walk the deer in my mind

Earlier today I was angry. Stomping around angry. The kind of anger that sends your cats and your kids for cover. I was angry because of comments attached to a posting at another weblog. Foolish comments. Hateful comments. Generating the type of anger that sends you out of your chair, causes you to yell at your computer, makes your head ache. You know the kind of anger I’m talking about.

I tried to write, a new weblog posting or to the RDF book, but couldn’t focus because of the anger. Finally, I gave up and went for a walk at Powder Valley. Sometimes a brisk walk works where all else fails.

No one else was around as I stomped along the trail, disregarding everything around me, lost in my anger, in the words that created my anger. I ignored the squirrels and the chipmunks and the wind through the trees and the crickets and the sounds of the creek and the wonderful smell and feel of fall. No room for all of that when one is consumed by anger.

And then, just as the trail climbed past a stand of trees, there they were. Five deer not more than 20 feet in front of me on the side of the trail. I stopped dead. They stopped dead. We just looked at each other in surprise. When I continued to hold still, the younger deer resumed eating and the herd began to slowly make its way past me, ever so close.

I looked into the eyes of the oldest deer, the one that seemed to be watching over the herd. They were the eyes of a being completely and utterly at home within its world. For all of humanity’s surperiority, for all of our art and music and writing and intelligence and culture, few of us will ever have that look in our eyes.

I spend too much time reacting to people who make me angry and not enough time to those who make me smile. That’s why I’ll never have that look in my eyes.

Categories
Weblogging

Blogs, bucks, ethics

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Me? Blog for bucks? There is absolutely no way that I would violate the trust of my readers by blogging for money. My readers know that I’ll always be honest with them, and would never sell out for filthy lucre. (By the way, while we’re on the subject of readers, I would like to recommend to you the ultimate in RSS feeds — the Userland RSS feed. It dices, it slices, it purée, why it can even clean Windows. It shoves and crams and punches all your weblog information into one itty bitty easily consumable package. Sm-o-o-o-th. Best of all, topped with crumbled feta cheese and pimento, and baked in the oven for ten minutes, it makes a tasty popover. Serve with a nice chianti.)

Now, where were we…oh yes, getting paid to blog. This may surprise you, but I’m a professional writer. Yes, indeedy. People pay me to write things for them, which shocks the hell out of me on a fairly regular basis. (But not too regular, which is why I’m broke all the time.)

Are you surprised that I’m a professional? Especially with all my typos? Well, if you think that the typos are the result of my inability to spell, and my horrid grammar, think again. It took a team of psychologists days to figure out where to insert each one for maximum effect.

So, are you all endeared to me yet?

Dorothea had some good points, among them:

Freelance writers (and, I should say, some employees) who blog are already accustomed to fitting themselves into the acceptable, the accepted. They’re so used to self-censorship it doesn’t bother them any more.

I’ve never had a problem censoring myself as a writer. In fact, there’s a host, a veritable host of editors who are laughing their heads off right now at the thought of me censoring myself. I’m the only writer at O’Reilly who has had “Opinion” prominently tacked on to an article title just so people won’t assume I’m speaking officially for O’Reilly. Yes, you work at O’Reilly and you piss off Tim, as punishment you’ll be assigned to work with me. (All except my current editor, Simon St. Laurent, of course. Simon is editor on the RDF book because, well, the man likes pain. What can I say.)

Back on topic. AKMA also had some interesting words on all of this. In particular he wrote:

Lesser bloggers, who might the more easily fall for the seductive allure of corporate benefaction, probably ought to make utterly clear their relation to any patrons. In that spirit, I’ll stipulate that I paid for my own hotel room in Denver, and burned all my frequent flyer miles to get to the conference.

But AKMA, you got God. All you have to do is walk along and, Oh, Sh–oot! There’s a bag full of money just lying there. Mercy, mercy. In other businesses this would be called graft, but in religion, it’s known as divine intervention.

Of course, David Weinberger came up with this Blogger Code of UnProfessional Ethics, giving us guidelines as we proceed in this serious business, this blogging. My particular favorite was:

My readers are kind. They make allowances and forgive me ahead of time.

(Yeah, right. And Bugs Bunny and the Brer Rabbit are having torrid sex over in those bushes yonder.)

In response to another nice writeup by Dorothea (“Hot blogger coming through, look out!”) Salo, Steve quipped:

I agree on the process, but I’m not sure it’s always selling out, or losing one’s soul. For me, yes, it would be: I’m an obnoxious anti-DeepPockets windbag. But if you believe in the supreme value of The Company or The Product (what is good for Microsoft is good for Rome), then what ethic are you going against by placing that value above any others? Not believing in universal ethics, I suppose I’d have to say none. Which, then, places the onus of reading the media—of sorting out the swill from the swell—to us, the consumers, the users, the sheep who can’t afford to be sheepish.

My golly folks! First you want my readers to trust me. Then you want my readers to forgive me. Now you want my readers to think!

You’re just asking too much.

This is offtopic, but I’m with Jeneane:

Alright, this needs to be said and I’m going to say it. David and Halley need to add comment capability to their blogs, and RageBoy needs to fix his comments forthwith.

Except I want to add Dorothea and Mark Pilgrim to this list. Jump in, folks. I’ve been assured by David that your readers will be kind.

Hee hee.

Categories
Weblogging

The wormhole effect

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Mark recounted the posting from the referral about the letter to the Register about the Register article about the Wired article about him ranting about Google, but…but…but the cycle was too much for nature and a big wormhole opened up and sucked Mark into another dimension. Probably one without Python.

(Now, let’s see how that looks in Mark’s referral list…)

Categories
Connecting Weblogging Writing

Bali

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Dave Winer starts a posting today with the title Whining Matilda, in response to the — legitimate — complaints of lack of coverage of the Bali bombing in the American press. He writes:

There are plenty of Australian weblogs. The Web is worldwide. Cover it, explain it, grieve it, if the US press isn’t covering it, route around them. Use the tools.

Dave, I’m sorry, but you sadly missed the point.

The vast majority of the people in this country have never heard of weblogs. It isn’t up to weblogs to provide the news because the American press focuses only on American pain. And by focusing only on American pain, we complete a picture that most of the world has of us: that we’re shallow, self-centered, egotistical isolationists who only care for our own dead, our own pain.

Dave, It isn’t that webloggers aren’t getting news; that’s not the point. It’s that the world sees that Americans don’t care.

But we do care. And we care even more every time we see a new face among the dead, read about someone else’s loss.

I’ve wanted to talk about this bombing for the last two days, but just didn’t know what to say. The words wouldn’t come. Today, though, I was reminded that, sometimes, it doesn’t matter that we speak eloquently, just that we speak.

To my friends who live in Australia and in Indonesia, and to all of those in the world who have lost loved ones, my deepest and most sincere sympathy. To all those who have been injured, my strongest hopes that you heal quickly, and find peace from the pain and the fear.