Though I edited the post that led to the comment, I did want to promote what Joel said here to the forefront, because I think it’s worth being highlighted:
A few people are so intense that they fail to think through processes. It may take years before a simple reform takes place because these power brokers don’t want to be bothered or they want to build in obstacles to prevent the redelineation of a structure that they built and that they hold precious.
It’s authoritarianism at its most subtle that you’re facing, Shelley. Putting a system in place and then never, ever really considering how it might be rethought to allow for more input from others. It’s the creation of a priestly class (think electoral college) which exists primarily to prevent radical change. Often, however, it turns into a tool for those wishing to promote a radical change that most people don’t want.
“Hysterics” is a buzzword used by some authoritarian types for anything that stops them cold in their tracks and asks that they think again. Stiff people accustomed to using stiff language use the accusation of emotion to attempt to make others think that they are dispassionate. The truth is they rattle easily and they don’t want you to know this. So, unless you are up all night and unable to put this stuff out of your mind, their labels are likely nothing more than a projection of the turmoil they feel inside of themselves when you suggest leveling the playing field, changing the way that decisions are made and, maybe, the players.
In particular the statement, stiff people accustomed to using stiff language use the accusation of emotion to attempt to make others think that they are dispassionate. I would expand on this that the same people use accusations of emotion in order to undercut what another is saying – to lessen the value.
This is the battle I face and have faced in the technology world. When I get angry, I’m accused of being ‘overly emotional’ or ‘hysterical’ where men are just accused of being hot headed, and though it’s subtle, there is a difference between the two. And this difference becomes very, very frustrating.
I was also told this week, though kindly and well meant, that I have a ‘my way or the highway’ approach to many of these discussions – that when I get pushback, I leave. Guilty. Guilty as charged, especially lately. But it’s not because I’m being disagreed with, or I’m not getting ‘my way’ and I’m pouting – it’s because I see this subtle or not so subtle shift happen again, and I just don’t want to continue the fight.
I’d rather just go for a walk or a drive and take photos and write stories. But that’s a cop out, isn’t it? Because if I leave these technology efforts, especially here in the weblogging work – the discussions such as those on the current weblogging metadata and RSS and others of these nature – there will be no other woman involved. No other woman.
What’s wrong with this picture?
Joel said:
It’s authoritarianism at its most subtle that you’re facing, Shelley. Putting a system in place and then never, ever really considering how it might be rethought to allow for more input from others.
That’s what this is all about, isn’t it? We create this open means of publication, where anyone can be heard. And then we constrain it with rules and regulations – mustn’t forget the links, m’dear – and elect kings and queens and become so many bobbing cats in a row, agreeing with everything they say, ready to tromp on any who disagree. The ‘echo bloggers’ I’ve heard about so much this week.
(Which is kinda funny because I just echoed the bloggers who talked about echo bloggers who… never mind. )
No answers. Back to work.