So If I Speak Out That Means I'm
1. Pissed
2. A complainer
3. Looking for self-promotion because I am a desperate publicity hound
4. Using feminism as a cause for justification in my disappointment (think about that for a while)
5. Blaming men for all the things wrong in my little world
6. Unappreciative
7. All about me -- hurt that I personally wasn't included
OK. Thanks for setting me straight. I'll simmer down now.
posted by RL @ 4:57 PM
7 comments
7 Comments:
you forgot "hysterical hormonal banshee" i think
and "hot"
if you're alluding to the discussion on craig's blog, i wouldn't let it get to you. your response was more than adequate. i get annoyed with anti-feminist women but, you know, people's lives are so complicated it's impossibe to figure out their motives for wanting to silence other women. i thought you handled it well. don't simmer down, but don't boil over either, the legitimacy of the complaint about the (perhaps unintentional, but nonetheless blatant) oversights of craig's article will be heard by thinking people. (or am i wimping out again? it's a tiring little mess.)
Reb,
You're point on Tost's blog got me thinking - about not following the boys. Not trying to fit into a paradigm created by men, but then not being taken seriously. If women create their own entity (i.e. own brand of online poetry or even the broader idea of "Women's Poetry") it is viewed as other and lesser. And, clearly, not worth mentioning. As someone who never would have been expected to personally be mentioned in such an article - I can say - that the fact that women were not in there just flat out PISSED ME OFF. And now that you and other women bloggers who actually could have been mentioned are complaining you are all being further dismissed and ignored. Hmmm, let's see if I have this right - women arguing their points = disappointed, self serving, angry. Our arguments get turned into irrational feelings. Interesting. But Craig can say that he included bloggers based on daily visits, but then not actually check site meters, well, that's not being subjective and irrational at all . . .
It's no wonder he's hiding under a table. I too take issue with the fact that the women are still girls even in the 21st century. Fuck that. I play for real.
I'm sorry to be so late to the conversation. I've been busy with rehearsals, but hey, you know, playing the violin, even at world class level, is still an interpretive (i.e. girlish) art, except for the fact that I wrote the libretto for the piece which has been published by Oxford Press, but what do I know? I blog about shoes.
maybe that wasn't an antifeminist woman. "that's a man, man!"
sorry that was flip. and was a joke. i have no idea who that is. tho i do know it wouldn't be the first time somebody crossdressed in the comments field.
Hum, yeah, the joy of Internet anonymity. I'm not sure I want to take a position on this debate. It seems to me like the new Legitimate Dangers or the new Flarf. Of course, that doesn't mean one should sit down and do nothing about the situation.
On the other hand, I will admit reading a lot more blogs from female writers than male writers. Not sure why. Perhaps it is that I've noticed recently that I was reading more female poets than male ones.
Post a Comment
<< Home