And I just want to clear a few things up, if only to establish with some finality that Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury shouldn’t be trusted as far as you can piss facing into an emerald Wellington gale. Martyn’s post is here, or will be until he deletes it and pretends it never happened.
QoT left the blog with Nicole Skews
is a lie, and one which I have previously corrected him on . Coley (which is what people call her when they’re not trying to silence her with the threat of workplace-related drama*) left The Daily Blog on 12 September. Her side of the tale is here.
I, on the other hand, had stepped down from blogging there on 24 July, with the following email:
Hey man, my post for the week is now with you.Unfortunately I’m going to have to step back from TDB. As you’ve probably gathered, things in the meat-world have been pretty rocky for me this year and the past month has just taken all my spoons.It’s been great though, I really like what you’re achieving and the line-up is awesome – so I know I won’t necessarily be missed *too* badly.🙂
You’ll want to keep this in mind for a bit further down. When in later email conversation I corrected him for claiming that my stepping down was due to Coley’s, he stated in an email of 20 September:
My mistake – I thought the 2 events were connected.
Next up. Martyn’s statement:
QoT’s latest attack is to claim that our desire on TDB to have more female voices is somehow a conspiracy to hide my true intentions of allowing the patriarchy to rule while paying lip service to diversity. She claims the lack of posts by the female bloggers in October is proof of this while I think that is a terrible slap in the face to the women bloggers on this site.
is easily compared with my actual post here – which Martyn does not link to. Please note: the statistics are not for October. They are for the entire running history of The Daily Blog, from February to October 2013, as noted on the post. I do not accuse Martyn of “allowing the patriarchy to rule”; I say:
With those kind of numbers, you’ve got to ask exactly what is being served by getting more women’s names onto the TDB roster. Is it women, or is it one guy’s liberal cred?
But Martyn claims that he’s actually the real feminist here:
QoT knows first hand from times she couldn’t get her blog through to us that there are many extra time issues for female bloggers to contend with. Family, work and study all impact on the time commitments people can commit to blogging, every blogger on this site has the ability to post whenever they want above the minimum commitments they agree to.
It’s a nice point, and a very valid one, and yeah, I’m not a perfect
employee contributor. But it struck me as odd that Martyn was suddenly so understanding of the pressures on women and how this might affect their ability to commit regular blog posts, because after I sent that email, back on 24 July, his response was far less accepting.
Martyn, 24 July:
WHOA – Hold up sister – QoT – mate, comrade – hold up.
I was out tonight at backbenchers and I had a couple of guys from out of town who had made the trip in special to watch it and they were raving about you and the impact you have made on their girlfriends in helping them find their voice.
QoT I do not want to lose you – how about this – how about we cut you down from weekly to fortnightly – would that help?
A day later, after I hadn’t responded – remembering that I’d explained life was a bit difficult at the moment.
So would fortnightly take the pressure off you?
Please note that is the entire text of the email. I explained – very nicely** – that it wasn’t a goer. He responded:
Doh – those personal things – bloody nuisance those.
I’ll back off for a month and then start gently prodding – you are simply too important a voice to allow quieting my dear QoT – there is genuinely a new generation of women reading your blogs and feeling real power from seeing a woman as staunch and powerful as you front footing it with anyone.
I know how passionate you are so know your personal trauma must be great to pause from blogging. Take time to heal comrade, I’ll hold your line in the fight.
And then a month later, with no further contact from me – and sure, I could have been more forthcoming, but Martyn could also have taking a fucking hint** – the boilerplate reminder emails began again. And I didn’t want to pick a fight, because I feared that Martyn would be nasty in retaliation. I think subsequent events bear this out.
But it does seem to suggest that he is not as open-minded about the pressures on women bloggers as he claims, and quite happy to apply it himself.
And finally, Martyn says:
The insinuation that Amanda Kennedy, Christine Rose, Dianne Khan, Jenny Michie, Julie Anne Genter, Julie Fairey, LadyMac, Laila Harre, Latifa Daud, Louisa Wall, Marama Davidson, Moana Mackey, Penny Hulse, Phoebe Fletcher, Professor Jane Kelsey, Rachael Goldsmith, Sue Bradford, Susan St John, Tali Williams and Melissa Ansell-Bridges are somehow puppets being played for deceptive means by myself, Chris Trotter, Selwyn Manning, Frank Macskasy and Wayne Hope is as ludicrous as it is offensive to those women.
It’s very nice to know that he can name all his remaining women bloggers. But again, it begs a question: if all of these women find my statements offensive and ludicrous, why isn’t Martyn giving them a platform to say so?
The rest of Martyn’s post is a masterclass in sexist double standards and tone argument. It shouldn’t need saying that the man who refers to me as “Queen of Scorns”, who coined the phrase “Emerald Stormtroopers”, and who categorised what is basically an argument over one comment on a blog as “completely fracturing the Auckland and Wellington left” is probably not the person who should be lamenting the horrors of blog-war.
Martyn is a liar. If you are dealing with him, screencap everything. This correspondence is now very much closed.
*In an earlier post, Martyn referred to her as “Nicole Skews of [her workplace]”. This has, like so many things, been silently retconned.
**And let’s all think for a moment about how women are programmed to be nice in order to not antagonise men because they fear being attacked by them. I don’t think it’s a stretch given the exact post I’m commenting on now.
You know, I think Maia had one tiny point in amongst the letting us all know that blogging about cupcakes is Diluting The Great Feminist Message.
Posting something frivolous to a feminist group or blog does imply/assume that thing is feminist or should be treated as a feminist issue.
Where we disagree* is that she thinks that means we have to explain why that thing is explicitly feminist or refrain from posting it. And I think the very fact of a thing being discussed on a feminist blog puts it in a feminist or wider progressive context.
So just what is a feminist issue?
Are silly boutique clothing stores which cut clothes to fit bigger-busted women a feminist issue?
Of course they fucking are because we live in a patriarchy that demands conformity to an incredibly narrow set of standards of beauty. The fit and fashionableness of clothes have implications for women’s lives from the ability to meet professional or corporate wardrobe standards to being able to feel comfortable in their bodies to presenting a challenge to those beauty standards by the merest fact of being a non-standard body shape wearing edgy, new, well-fitting or fashionable clothes in public.
Are “aesthetics” a feminist issue?
An alternative title for this post was “Because wearing lipstick can be a feminist act”. I just said it a paragraph above: beauty standards. Daring to be visible in public. Add to that gender performativity and people’s choice to challenge norms or desire to blend in to make their lives that little bit easier if they need/want to. Add to that the entire area of human attraction and romance and celebrity crushes or appreciation of the physical form and our ability to challenge those things without scrapping the notion of finding other human beings fucking hot.
Are cupcakes and knitting feminist issues?
Obviously not, I mean, duh, there’s no room for reclamation of traditionally “feminine” roles and crafts. No space for a discussion of the pressures of modern life depriving people of time to really engage with the food they eat or maintain old customs or challenge that big evil capitalist system by taking charge of the means of production even in small home-cooking cottage-industry ways. We definitely don’t want to break down orthorexic messages about “bad foods” and we definitely shouldn’t prop up our mental health and self-esteem defences against the constant criticism of patriarchy by taking pride in creating things.
But what if we don’t spell out why these things are feminist issues?
Plenty of conversations about cupcakes or clothing stores don’t actually involve posts saying “I have baked cupcakes in accordance with my personal desire to bake uninfluenced by notions of proper women’s roles, for a bake sale at my children-who-have-my-surname’s school because my male life-partner was too tired after a hard day’s respecting my reproductive choices.”
Do we seriously fucking have to?**
I am a staunch fucking warrior for the feminist cause, people. I will rant at the drop of a hat or the merest sighting of a Cosmo cover, I will march, I will campaign. But sometimes I have to take a break. Sometimes people who work even harder than me, like Sady Fucking Doyle, need to take a break, and build up our reserves of stamina and anger in order to continue the fight and not burn out.
Sometimes I just want to have a fucking glass of cider with some friends, and talk shit about baking and weddings, and it’s really fucking awesome to be able to do that in a group where I am guaranteed not to encounter casual racism or homophobia or transphobia or classism or any other gratuitous exercise of privilege. It’s really fucking awesome to know I could post on a forum about hating fucking Valentine’s Day and not run the stellarly high risk of having someone fucking bingo me with “oh but you’ll feel different when you’re in a relationship” or “oh you just need to drop your man and find one who’ll treat you right.”***
And I can imagine someone coming across Emma’s, and thinking “who can I share this with without getting a dozen “oh I had that problem but then I tried X diet” or “tee hee I’m so lucky I can just buy straight off the rack at Glassons” or “do you ever try wearing your bra as a hat?”**** responses?”
And maybe they just fucking thought hey, this group of women who I know are all in Wellington and who I can probably assume will all have some understanding of basic feminist critiques of beauty standards and the fashion industry will totally want to know that there are other patriarchy-busting resources out there for those of them with this particular problem.
But fuck, I guess they just weren’t being real feminists.
*And oh my god can you BELIEVE that we might be able to disagree without me declaring Maia has lost 10 Feminist House Points?
**Statement of the fucking obvious: some places have narrow commenting policies. Some places explicitly spell out what qualifies as on- or off-topic. The owners of those places get to make those calls and as always, it’s fucking rude for anyone to declare that those policies must be changed because all feminist conversation must follow a, b, c rules. Which is why I’m a lot less cussy elsewhere and anyone trying to rehash fucking over-cooked topics is getting no linguistic mercy.
****Also true story.
Things this post is not actually about:
- Maia’s “tone” or “the way she brought this up”
- Deep meaningful conversations about “what constitutes feminism”
- Hating your freedoms
… which is not to rule out any of those things as automatically unimportant or “off the table” or taboo.
This is about:
- A group which calls itself “feminist” is formed
- A post is made to said group about a shop catering to a non-standard body type
- A feminist blogger says such posts should not be made because they’re unfeminist, or that such posts have to be phrased in a way she likes, or that the moderators of the page have to justify why it’s feminist because being posted to a feminist group means it must be relevant to feminism
And I think point 3 is a bit shit, for a lot of reasons, and none of them are those bog-standard derailments about “refusing to take criticism” or “taking things personally” or “misrepresenting what Maia said”.
Because I think point 3 sums up what she said pretty well, given that what she said was:
things which I would normally just be ‘eh’ about really agitate me when they’re done in the name of feminism …
posting anything to a feed of a feminist group is to promote that post as a feminist act …
promoting any particular sized or shaped [body/clothing fitting] is problematic from a feminist perspective …
the way clothes are produced in [NZ] is absolutely the opposite of everything I think feminism stands for…
I object to … promoting clothes shopping (particularly at a specific shop) as something that is going to appeal to a group of women who have nothing in common other than they’re young feminists …
To me a core part of that responsibility [as a contributor in a feminist space] is to never suggest that liking the things I happen to like is part of being feminist …
material presented on the feed should be explicitly feminist…
I think this is a real danger … that women can feel that they can’t be a feminist because they don’t look a certain way and aren’t interested in certain things. And I think the easiest way to avoid that is to make aesthetic/lifestyle/survival choices off the table for feminist discussion. In order to create an environment where anyone feels like they can be feminist it needs to be as unacceptable to promote a particular way of say dressing as to diss a particular way of dressing…
I’m anti feminism being linked with a single aesthetic…
I think I’ve articulated in quite some detail why I think having material which isn’t explicitly feminist in feminist spaces is alienating. Particularly in feminist spaces that present themselves as generally as “The [not even ‘a’] Wellington Feminist Collective.”…
I think feminists should orient themselves critically towards those businesses for the reasons I listed…
I think it’s inappropriate for Coley to post it without explicitly making clear why because she is promoting one particular, inaccessible, aesthetic/lifestyle/Survival strategy as feminist, which I think is alienating…
And while I don’t think I did make a demand of the WYFC – I don’t think there’s anything wrong with me doing so. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with making demands with institutions/organisations that you’re supposed to be allied with. In fact, I think it’s an important part of building a social movement.
As to who I am? I’m a feminist who has thought about feminism and is prepared to defend her opinions. I think that gives me a right to talk about what feminism is and isn’t. I think that’s all any of us needs. And I think talking about what feminism is and isn’t is really important…
Issue: “promoting a single aesthetic”
As I said at THM, one post about one shop on a page covered in posts about abortion and misogynist radio contests and debunking stereotypes about Muslim feminists does not “promotion of a single aesthetic” make. I get body issues. I get being fat. I get that sinking sense of disappointment when even stores which are advertised as catering to different body shapes invariably do not carry anything near my size. And I saw the post about Emma’s on WYFC and thought “bet she doesn’t go to a size 18”.
But that hardly fucking invalidates the fact that being a fattie who can’t shop at Glassons is hardly the only form of body-policing or body-discrimination in the world and sometimes the size 12 girls with the E cups might like to know where to find dresses that fucking fit. And those girls are going to totally get feminist critiques of fashion and narrow beauty standards. And until every second post on the page is “oh hai here’s another resource explicitly aimed only at straight-sized busty girls” it’s fucking ludicrous to act like this one post represents the WYFC endorsing a single acceptable body shape.
Issue: “get a Marxist analysis or go home”
I think a lot of Marxist feminist analysis is fucking awesome. I’ve been pretty clear about that. But anyone who’s literally going to say that women can’t plug local businesses [at least without a laboured disclaimer about the evils of capitalism] because all business is capitalist and therefore evil can fuck right off.
We live in a capitalist society, we need fucking clothes, and as a fattie who herself and whose many non-standard-body-type friends have a lot of fucking difficulty finding clothes that fit I am actually not willing to self-flagellate because finally being able to buy cute dresses for only-slightly-above-“straight”-size-prices is Buying Into Corporate Doom.
Also? When you’re having a go at something for not explicitly nailing down what “feminism” is defined as, and you’re also saying “it has to be this and this and this and phrased like this and tick all these boxes”, don’t get fucking precious when people tell you you’ve appointed yourself Lady High Mistress of Feminist Lines in The Sand, because you just really did.
Issue: “well this affected me so your argument is invalid”
Do I have a problem with people raising issues that have affected them? No. Do I think there’s a big fucking difference between “this affected me and here’s why and let’s discuss that” and “this affected me so it should never ever happen against because you’re not real feminists”? Yes. See above.
Issue: “but THE! And R18 VENUES!”
Do I have a problem with disagreement and debate? No. Do I think there’s a big fucking difference between “let’s look at why this post is here and what I find problematic about it” and “let’s look at this post and also I want to explicitly say I’m not a member of this group I’m critiquing and also your name is a lie and also your choice of launch venue is discriminatory*”? Just a tiny bit.
Time for a high school analogy, because I feel pretty safe assuming we’ve all been there.
“Regina, I think that thing you said was mean because you reduced Lindsay Lohan’s character down to her country of origin.”
Is “raising something you found problematic”.
“Regina, I think that thing you said, while wearing those totally out-of-style trainers, was mean, and while I’m pointing that out can we also remember that you stole my trike in kindergarten you bitch?”
Is being vindictive and petty and nasty and refusing to just engage with the topic at hand … which hilariously is what Maia keeps accusing her detractors of.
Issue: “everything posted to the Collective page MUST be explicitly feminist!”
This is a biggie for me. For now? Let’s look at those above points where it’s pretty obvious that “feminist” here means “MY kind of feminism which can only discuss things I am comfortable with and MUST involve analysis from THIS point of view”.
That’s not discussion, it’s not a conversation. It’s an ultimatum from a person who doesn’t even go here,** about how a group she isn’t even involved in*** has to be operated to pass her magical test of feministness or she won’t let them call themselves feminist.
As the sweet old lady said to the Mormons, well in that case you can fuck right off.
But there’s a lot more that’s problematic with that statement and that’s going to have to wait for another post.
And finally some comments on the comments to hopefully avoid the same wank-circle that has devoured the THM post on this.
Issue: “waaaa why can’t feminists all be cuddly hug-buddies waaaaa”
Because obviously feminists do disagree. And that’s fine. But as already established, this isn’t about disagreeing and discussing things, this is about one person declaring that feminism has to be done a specific way or she’ll take away our feminist badges and let everyone know we love Sarah Palin. (No, seriously, that’s the “logical” conclusion drawn.)
Issue: “you just hate Maia and think everything she says is wrong”
Nope. I just think it’s fucking horrible to attack an entire group because one post is Doing Feminism Wrong and You Get To Decide That. Like I just said.
*From the Facebook thread
**For some reason this issue is hitting ALL the Mean Girls buttons.
***Oh but she’s seriously excited, honest, she thinks you guys are just the best even if you are wrong and alienating and evil and kicked her dog.
After explaining that his “comments policy” boils down to “I don’t have to engage with my audience, now I’ve made my declarations from on high you are permitted to talk amongst yourselves”, Campbell has a go at me. Without being so open as to just name names, then people might actually look me up and see both sides of the story, which I understand is the most important thing in the world to him under other circumstances.
But since there’s still some apparent confusion, let me explain why Gordon Campbell is, indeed, a rape apologist.
From the most recent post:
I do not, and have not, absolved or condemned Assange’s personal conduct.
Gordon, you’re a rape apologist because you equate “accurately stating what the charges against Assange are” with “believing the charges against Assange”. You’re a rape apologist because you are contributing to the narrative that says people who say they want Assange held to account in a court of law must actually be “assuming” he’s guilty – and therefore, obviously, are not worth listening to.
You’re also a rape apologist because you refuse to address the fact that his personal conduct involves not simply denying the charges and waiting for trial, but employing lawyers who have outright lied about the charges and allegations and continually fed into rape culture with their statements about the accusers.
In the second Wikileaks article, I repeated the gist of the accusations against Assange, and put them alongside the gist of his initial response in court to them. It was an attempt at balance, not to absolve the left’s golden boy of the hour.
You’re a rape apologist because you continue to pretend that the answer to “you have printed misinformation about the case” is “okay that bit was maybe kinda wrong but here’s their side of the story!”
You’re a rape apologist because you’re acting like accurate reporting of the accusers’ statements – not agreeing, not supporting, just stating what they have said and what the charges are – needs to be “balanced” by Assange’s [lying] lawyers’ statement.
Guess what, Gordon. If the Herald prints that Remmers McFlorist won the Ellerslie Flower Show, and someone points out that actually, Flowers McArrangement won the Ellerslie Flower Show, it would be a bit fucking douchey if the Herald then printed, “Okay, okay, so we printed the wrong name, but here’s 500 words from Remmers McFlorist on why she SHOULD have won!”
That’s not balance, Gordon. And Assange’s rebuttal is not actually relevant to you correcting and apologising for your misinformation – misinformation which was weeks out of date. You’re a rape apologist because you have taken the lies of a “golden boy’s” lawyers at absolute face value over the statements of women. You’re a rape apologist because you instantly believed that unprotected sex is a crime in Sweden (those silly liberals, eh?) and thus the charges must just be nothing that Real Countries would prosecute.*
From the second post:
It is widely known that the complainants first approached the police because they wanted assistance in securing an STD test. Initially, there was no mention of pressing charges of rape, coercion or molestation. How did this escalate from a request for a test to an investigation of a criminal nature? Who made this decision? After considering the evidence, Eva Finne, a female Chief Prosecutor chose to dismiss the charges. The case was then taken up by a politician who was facing re-election and whose motive may be questionable. The matter was taken to a prosecutor in a different city where none of the events had taken place. Why was this done? Was any pressure brought to bear? These are the questions a truly committed investigative journalist should be asking.
Gordon, you’re a rape apologist because you uncritically post comments which criticise rape victims for not behaving the way they “should”. You’re a rape apologist for posting comments which imply that the cases must be silly if a women lawyer dropped the charges initially.
Below that, you’re a rape apologist for posting the “gist” of the charges against Assange … a “gist” which just happens to omit that whole “tearing off somebody’s clothes”, “holding somebody down” aspect. Funny how the charges, which you misreported, get given the “gist” treatment while the lying lawyers’ statement bullet points get the full “can I hold your coat while you take the stage, sir” rub-down.
Back to the latest post.
What I’ve said all along is that Assange’s personal conduct shouldn’t determine, one way or the other, how the revelations by Wikileaks are judged.
Gordon, you’re a rape apologist because you’re the one who keeps bringing up Wikileaks. You’re the one who keeps waving the Wikileaks flag and you’re certainly fucking smart enough to know that waving that flag just keeps everyone conscious of the fact that Julian Assange is linked to Wikileaks, and Wikileaks is awesome, and the Powers That Be hate Wikileaks, and so we have to take accusations of rape with a grain of progressive dudebro-brand salt because HEY, WIKILEAKS! DID I MENTION WIKILEAKS YET?
If you want the charges against Assange and the work of Wikileaks to be treated separately, maybe you could stop fucking playing the Wikileaks Is Important card every fucking time you are asked to report ethically on the charges against Assange.
You know what would be awesome and bold and courageous, Gordon? If you had stood by your premise from the start:
Assange’s alleged sexual misconduct has managed to divert some media attention away from the content of the cables. The two things are – or should be – unconnected.
Who keeps connecting them, Gordon? I’ll give you a clue: it’s not the feminists who want rape charges treated seriously. It could, you know, be Assange himself who wants to constantly remind us (when not playing the I Can’t Help It If I’m A Rocking Stud line) that there are powerful forces against him and that “CIA honeypot” is a real conspiracy-theory-tickler of a line.
But don’t think he’s done, people.
Yet at this point, Assange has to be presumed innocent until proven guilty of the charges against him.
Gordon, you’re a rape apologist because you have just busted out Rape Apologism Maxim the First. Guess fucking what? That’s a principle applicable to justice systems. Is my blog a justice system? Is media reporting a subset of the justice system? And hang on, at what fucking point is accurate reporting of the nature of the charges tantamount to assuming guilt? At what fucking point have I said “you have to assume he’s guilty”? OH THAT’S RIGHT, NEVER.
We claim to want the same thing here, Gordon. We claim to want to see these charges answered in court. But because you’re a fucking rape apologist you aren’t waiting until the charges are answered in court, you are making statements right now that the charges are silly, the women didn’t act the way they should have, HAVE I MENTIONED WIKILEAKS IS IMPORTANT AND IMPLIED THAT THIS IS A CIA HONEYTRAP YET???
The Guardian’s actions in releasing part of the Swedish prosecutor’s file against him was – I thought – an injustice.
You’re a rape apologist, Gordon, because you think an “injustice” is having the facts of the case published AFTER Assange’s lawyers have lied about them, AFTER Assange’s lawyers have lied about the entire Swedish legal system, AFTER the accusers have been not only named but had their photos and addresses publicised and been FORCED INTO HIDING.
But sure, what the Guardian did was the “injustice” here (now you’ve gotten around to reading it).
I found it interesting that one commenter portrayed me as part of a gendered tendency to minimize women’s experience and testimony in sexual complaints, while also denigrating me for linking to Bianca Jagger
Don’t worry, Gordon, this one isn’t about you being a rape apologist. This is about how you’re a misogynist douchebag for acting like quoting Bianca Jagger magically absolves you of your significant contributions to rape apologism. You’re a misogynist douchebag for going on to say naming the accusers mustn’t be that bad because hey, these Famous Feminists totally did it – failing to mention that one had retracted those names until after the quote, which was even better for your argument what with it boiling down to “everyone else did it so I did it too”. But as a bonus, you and Bianca Jagger are both rape apologists for pretending that criminal cases can never be re-opened unless Dark Forces Are At Work.
Then it’s a fine finish with a lather/rinse/repeat of “we can’t assume his guilt” [CITATION NEEDED] and a wonderfully oblivious expression of male privilege:
Personally, I do find it depressing that so much energy has been spent on Assange’s actions in bed and so relatively little on the morality exposed in the Wikileaks cable
WHY AREN’T THE WIMMINZ INTERESTED IN REEEEEEEAL ISSUES?? Oh, and Gordon? You’re a rape apologist for spending so much time pretending to care, so much time claiming it was about balance and fairness and did you mention Wikileaks … and then you fucking write off rape allegations as “Assange’s actions in bed”.
Gordon, you’re a rape apologist because you continue to make excuses for the fact that you spread misinformation. You’re a rape apologist because you pretend that factual reporting of charges requires a critique-free rebuttal. You’re a rape apologist because you have continued to downplay the charges and continued to privilege Assange’s side of the story. You’re a rape apologist because you have on multiple occasions, contributed to a culture which denigrates rape victims and treats rape as far less serious than other crimes.
You’re a rape apologist because every single thing you have said over three columns is straight out of the rape apologism playbook.
I can’t think why Polanski-defenders came to mind in light of all that.
*Protip, Gordon: most countries are pretty shit at even prosecuting “real” rape cases.
Many links sourced from megpie’s excellent round-up.
How Not To Make Yourself Look Like a Total Asswipe Online: A Politician’s Guide
- When a group of your constituents organises to be more politically active, and contact you regarding their concerns, don’t hit Reply All and tell them to fuck off because their emails are “spam”.
- When they point out that that was kinda rude, don’t rubbish the concept of email etiquette.
- When someone then quotes you word-for-word and offers civil advice on how to not do steps 1 and 2 again, don’t stalk them, probably on taxpayer’s time, to find out their real identity.
- If you do find out their real identity, don’t publish it in a widely-distributed email newsletter after sending an aggressive email to them asking them for a comment.
- If you do all these things, for the love of Jesus and the baby fennec foxen, DO NOT try to claim that you’re answering some Grand Moral Imperative. And especially don’t say shit like this:
My own theory about the public process is you can say what you want, as long as you are willing to stand behind it using your real name.
Because then you’ll be Mike Doogan, Alaskan, Congressman, fricking Democrat.
Other things that might, um, be kinda bad include refusing to answer someone’s policy questions because they’re a blogger – while asking them to identify one of their fellows.
Oh, and while doing so, don’t say shit like:
How does you keeping this person’s name a secret comport with your “let’s put everything on the blog” ethic? You are talking out of both sides of your mouth, Phil. As long as you are going to pick and choose what information you make public, there’s really no reason for me to communicate with you.
‘Cause you know what people can choose to make public, Mike? Your idiotic emails.
Especially the ones where you say:
… I don’t believe in anonymity in the political area. It’s too much like people wearing sheets and hoods for my taste.
Any Alaskans who may stumble on this: I am so, so sorry that your politicians keep making you look this bad.
So, Kyle Payne. I was first introduced to the flaming asshat via Belledame. Renegade Evolution has a comprehensive list of posts made on the topic, and I encourage y’all to go read what some other fine bloggers have said.
Tawdry story short: Kyle Payne is a feminist. He cares about women. He cries when he watches porn. He was a rape counsellor and an RA, and while caring for an unconscious female student, he touched her breasts and filmed them with his handy digital camera.
A good round-up of what other blogs are saying on the Tony Veitch affair over at The Hand Mirror. I currently lack will or energy* to really comment, except to say what really should not need saying to an adult:
Any apology phrased “I am sorry, but …” isn’t.
*Huzzah, first-week-of-semester-stomach-flu, your arrival was annoying and wholly predictable.
It is the nature of fun things that everything goes fine for a little bit, you’re lulled into a false sense of security, and then BAM! the Universe decides to shake things up.
In less obscure terms, someone in the household had a week off work and seems to have spent ALL of it on Youtube. Thus, we are throttled to sub-Dark-Ages-dial-up speeds and this makes my usual daily blogreading/getting angry/ranting routine go pear-shaped. Back in … about a week.
It’s been a rather aggravating week for me on the ‘Net. If it wasn’t geeks trying to get free grope rights, or yet another shitfight breaking out on the feminist/WOC blogs, or various media deciding to be gratuitously offensive and hypocritical all in one go … well, not a good week. Thus, a blog. Not my personal day-to-day yammerings, but a place I can use to lay out my ideas and random philosophizing. With luck, other people may actually read it!