I just happened on to the birth of a new weblog yesterday, Evil Woman.
Since Evil Woman and I both like so many of the same weblogs, I have no choice but to add her to my blogroll.
I just happened on to the birth of a new weblog yesterday, Evil Woman.
Since Evil Woman and I both like so many of the same weblogs, I have no choice but to add her to my blogroll.
Jonathon just posted entries from a mailing list that seems to suffer the same fate of so many comment threads. Without repeating the entries here (you must take the time to read these) what started out as a discussion about scanner prices ended up with a rant about nuking all the liberals. Within the space of three entries!
It took Jonathon’s Sisterhood posts and the comments this weekend to make me realize that most of what’s happened to this weblog in the last few weeks — the feminist to free speech to freedom of religion to terrorist sympathezier thread — wasn’t personal. Aside from the emails, comments, and cross-postings of kindness and support, most of the other discussions just weren’t personal.
Well, shoot myself in the head with my own vanity, won’t I?
When I realized this one thing, it changed everything for me. Before this realization I was feeling battered, and hacked, and worse — that I wasn’t communicating effectively with my writing. And believe me the thought that my writing was poor hurt worst of all because I love to write. I love to communicate.
I realized this weekend that a lot of people have a lot of things to say, and sometimes, they’ll say them even when there is no context for what they’re saying. And sometimes they’ll say them even though the result is hurtful. They won’t mean to be hurtful (for the most part) — they’re just burning to say these things inside and sometimes reactions result.
Way back when, at least a week ago (almost a full weblogging generation), Mike Sanders said some things and I took these things personally. But he really wasn’t slamming me. He wasn’t attacking me. Not really. Mike was caught up in his own moment, his own crusade, and in his own hurts and thoughts and actions. And his weblog and his postings reflected that. Unfortunately, coincidentally, other things were also reflected, including implications of this and that, and discussions about moral equivalency and so on.
I reacted personally. I now know that this was a huge mistake. What I should have done at the time is just ignored Mike. Such a simple thing I could have done — ignored him. That was the *weapon* that would have been effective in this particular battle. And I’m finding out it’s the hardest damn weapon to learn how to use.
If anything, last week I should have focused on what Mike was saying outside of the “I’ve pulled these people” stuff — that was the issue. That was the important stuff.
Some of us (me) take so long to learn what others (you) already know.
I started this weblog back up today with a new “rule” I was going to apply — no comments unless you open your weblog to comments. Realistically, this isn’t always doable for some people. Or even wise or safe for others. It was a stupid rule, still based on that “I’m taking this all personally” effect from last week.
The silliest thing about this “rule” is that I’m probably one of the luckiest webloggers there is because I find that my readers’ comments are almost always on topic, erudite, thoughtful, and for the most part, civilized (well, except for my own a couple of times). I can count on one hand the personal attacks I’ve had in my comments. Considering the topics I originate, that’s pretty damn good.
Long and short of it is: This weblog is totally “open” for business. Under management with a new attitude.
Thanks for coming by. Come again.
By the way, you all totally missed the April’s Fool joke I did play today.
You’re all fired 😉
I wish I could say that my taking down the weblog was an April Fool’s gag, but it wasn’t. I seriously wanted to take this weblog down and remove any non-professional related material from the web as I conducted a job search. I even went so far as to hand delete postings at my old Manila weblog since I couldn’t remove the entire weblog.
However, when I saw weblog after weblog after weblog filled with such hate this morning, I knew that to take my weblog down now was morally wrong. If all of those who try and speak with reason, who try and see all sides of these complex issues, who try and protect freedom of speech, religion, and belief silence themselves, who will fight the battles that need fighting? Particularly in my country?
I can’t do much. That’s more than true. The most I can do is speak my mind and I’ll have to take satisfaction from that. Hopefully the fact that I live in a fairly liberal community means that speaking my mind won’t handicap my job search. However, I know that I’m effectively closing the door on getting a job in certain parts of the country with what I have spoken, and will be speaking in the weeks to come.
So be it.
However, there will be a new rule with this weblog now: All people are welcome to post comments — except for those people who have weblogs and don’t enable comments themselves.
If you don’t have a weblog, please feel free to post a comment. If you do have a weblog, and you have comments enabled, then feel free to say what you want. But I’m not going to continue providing a forum for free speech to those who will not provide a public forum of their own.
And I am more than capable of selectively deleting specific comments, so don’t think I won’t enforce this.
Am I being unfair? You tell me how the hell I’m being unfair.
Take a look at a posting at Jonathon’s, whose comments I’ve been appreciating. Notice how some of the comments aren’t even related to Jonathon’s posting topic? For instance, this Michael Glazer drops in some fairly vicious verbal thrusts about the Palestine/Israel situation (Jonathon’s postings were about sisterhood and the fact that women can be pretty vicious in our dealing with each other), but if you follow the link to his weblog — he doesn’t provide comments capability in his own weblog. Why is that Michael? Do you feel free to say anything to others but are incapable of allowing that same freedom in return?
Am I suppressing freedom of speech? Not a bit of it. These people have weblogs, they can speak on their own dime.
I’ve tried different means to communicate, including intellectual conversations, and poetry, and satire, and what have you. I admire those that can use these techniques and I will visit them and appreciate their efforts daily, as well as point out their choicest bits to my reading audience. However, these techniques aren’t me. I am passionate, with strong beliefs, a fierce love of my country and the principles upon which it is based — though these principles do get battered more than a bit.
And I will speak from an emotional base. I hope to also speak from reason, and compassion, and a sense of humor and perspective, but what I am and what I feel is going to remain a part of this weblog.
Recovered from the Wayback Machine.
I made a mistake last Friday — I thought to introduce conflicting viewpoints to demonstrate that one can, intellectually, appreciate more than one viewpoint on an issue. This was a mistake because there are some issues that one cannot discuss from the detached, bloodless core that exists at the root of all intellectual discourse.
We’re seeing the collapse of the Arab Summit amidst more suicide bombings in Israel. We’re witnessing a seemingly non-ending spiral that can only have devastating consequences. Ira Riftkin writes of the conflict:
Israelis cannot kill Palestinian aspirations without obliterating the Palestinians, and no number of Palestinian attacks will force Israel to surrender meekly, certainly not after the Holocaust.
Faced with such stark words, what possible intellectual spin could we put on this issue? Without sounding hollow and vain?
I was a foolish woman who forgot for a moment that blood issues such as this go beyond any form of “reasoning” one can do with the written word, no matter how eloquent the writing, no matter how intelligent the communicator, no matter how erudite the audience. To have brought this topic up in my weblog was the absolute height of vanity and arrogance. And I have paid for this attempted intellectual encapsulation of such a dire, incredibly sad, and heartbreaking situation as exists in the Middle East.
My desperate hope is that there are others out there more capable than I that can find a solution to this tragedy before we are faced with the complete extermination of a people — whether the people be Israelis or Palestinians, or both.
And now I apologize to all of you for having originated this topic in this weblog, first out of intellectual vanity, and later in a fit of anger and self-righteousness. If I decide to continue with this weblog, I will not do so again in the future.