Wednesday, April 12, 2006

I've been blogging long enough to know that any time I make the slightest critical statement I risk the chance of someone turning it personal. My comments have no merit because I'm this or that (see below). In the past I've been mediocre, fat, a slut . . .

It's usually been men, but today it's a woman accusing me of masquerading a personal agenda as feminism. I don't call myself a feminist and never brought up the term. I care about the "woman" issues because, isn't it obvious, I'm a woman. It's like a daily thing for me. (If you consider that feminism, fine, I'm not arguing an antifeminist stance -- I have no desire to argue "feminism" with anyone) And sure, sometimes I'm touchy -- but this time -- well, all I did was voice "disappointment" with an article that I thought omitted some pretty important stuff. In the beginning I made a somewhat snarky comment -- "that it clearly was written by someone who wasn't very familiar with online going-ons" -- that I quickly retracted when I learned it was incorrect -- although it left me a little more astonished. And then I was further astonished by Craig's response today.

I was never "pissed" at Craig or thought he was a neanderthal or a bad man or had issues with women. I never thought or felt or said Craig was keeping women-poets down. I don't know Craig and when people tell me he's a stand-up guy and has done other things acknowledging women-poets, like write an article about Kay Ryan -- I have no reason not to believe them. But as I said last night, this really isn't about Craig. It's about how and how not women are being acknowledged in this "new" online frontier and that article was the latest example.

But I do get pissed at personal and asinine comments directed at me or other folks -- and I am especially pissed at the comments here because aside from being totally uncalled for -- they're utterly wrong.

Brenda, you don't know anything about me or my "agenda" or my problems or who I'm blaming my "failures" on. As for self-serving, there's very little "self-serving" going on in my life these days and your accusations that this is somehow sour grapes about not getting my own name in print -- you know what, I'm doing OK. I'm OK with where I am. My hit counter goes on all night long and I have no need/desire for more blog readers. And like this really isn't about Craig, this really isn't about me. . .

So how about you crawl the fuck out of my ass regarding your imagined perception of my issues with men and my insatiable hunger to make my mark? If you want to say it's no big deal that article shut out the female peers of the men mentioned or bring up the numerous other good deeds of the author and how that evens things out -- fine, that's your right, but don't presume you know a thing about me and for God's sake -- don't lecture me about feminism. I don't give two shits what "REAL feminists" would do or celebrate.

4 Comments:

At 8:45 PM, Blogger Carol Peters said...

brav-the-fucking-O, Reb. well said.

 
At 10:35 PM, Blogger shann said...

what a crock of steamy shit that all was- and how dare there play the 'feminist' card in this day and age-

assholes-

thanks, reb, for paying attention.

 
At 3:20 AM, Blogger Jessica Smith said...

is there a "feminist card"? i thought brenda was far from being a feminist. no feminist would ever *blame* you for being self-promotional (not that you are being that); i think i'm a feminist and i would rather say, women should really speak up more and you're doing a great job of speaking up. if we don't speak up, and articles with factual inconsistencies like craig's are just alowed to be published with no discourse, no discord, then the perception that women are silent will just keep going. unless we speak up, then what?

 
At 7:09 AM, Blogger J.B. Rowell said...

Well done Reb - here's a thought going back to the size matters issue: I wonder what would happen to their beloved site meters if women stopped visiting . . . hmmmmm.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home