 |
 |
 |
|
Re: Side Note Beth's site is down
Sorry, Doc. You're right -- this posting wasn't meant to be objective, and my anger got away with me in my original response. Defending another person is a noble thing to do. But bringing that person's sex into this, out of the blue, was totally out of line. As I tried to say in my original email (and was angry, as you can tell by my use of Sullivan), if we're going to introduce 'sex' into discussions such as these, then this medium has become a sexist medium. I don't know this person and I wanted to defend her, and not because of her sex. It was because she had a personal weblog where she talked about her company, true, but where she also talked about her cat, and her thoughts, and just stuff. A weblog. And this so-called journalist invoked an extreme elitist attitude and made fun of her, in the worst school yard bully manner. And there is nothing I despise more than a bully. Your defense was appropriate if you think he was being mean, and personal. There was never an issue of sex in this. By introducing Beth's sex, Dave demoted this issue to one of 'boys and girls', and that was wrong, very wrong. To Beth, to Andrew, to you, to your readers. If we introduce sex into this story, then could we also say that if Beth hadn't been a woman, the parody site wouldn't have been created? Or could we say if Beth hadn't been a woman, Andrew wouldn't have written the article, or been so cutting? But there was no evidence that Beth's sex had anything to do with the parody site, or Andrew's article. So why introduce her sex when it came to her defense? And because the issue of sex was raised, will you be more hesitant to defend a woman in the future? Will you question your motives for defending a woman? Will you ask yourself, "Am I doing this because the person deserves my defense? Or am I doing it because she's a woman?" I saw your defense as a professional journalist taking another to account for attacking what is nothing more than a personal journal. Sex had nothing to do with it. Well, not until it was introduced, and then it shadowed everything that occurred before and after. We all have strength enough to fight our own battles. But if we all do so alone, then what's the point of reaching out, with connecting with each other? When we defend another, we're not helping just the person we're defending -- we're helping ourselves. Sorry for comments, and comment length. I think you were right to defend Beth and I think well of you for the act. And I agree, I hope she does get another weblog, and continues writing exactly like she does. There are responses to this message:
|
