-- Andrea
p.s. May I just add in further response to this individual's post that though sex is a personal choice, it does not exist outside of the political arena. It is not "half-politicized;" it is inherently and wholly political.
Cheers, folks! And here's the comment:
"Even Better..."
October 20, 2008 7:21 PM
Delete
Blogger mediocritease said...
Culture jamming is really kind of dubious. What difference exactly are these stickers going to make? Sexuality is a personal choice, not some kind of half-politicized, mildly offensive, self-indulgent graffiti. Throwing something in someone's face doesn't make them want to respect you anymore than they did before. Have you thought about whether or not flaunting it really helps your cause? And just out of curiosity, do you think the free love movement did anything truly positive for human relations? Am I for gay marriage? Absolutely. Equal rights for all walks of life? Most definitely. Are there better ways to get there? Probably.
October 20, 2008 7:24 PM
Delete
Blogger Upstarts said...
The logo is one component of a much broader campaign. The stickers are just one element that is 1) a catchy and provocative image that plays not only on a largely unpopular word (apparently... eh hemmm...) but 2) also reappropriates a brand of consumer culture that connotes a whole other element of capitalist critique and inquiry. Controversy breeds interest and reactions (apparently again...)demonstrate discomfort. For instance, some people's skins crawl when they see the word "fuck," (eh-hemmm...) which might lead them to disavow an entire campaign because they can't stomach the implications of one of the dirtiest of words. All this before they even decide to do their homework on what the campaign entails. I would invite you, mediocritease, not only to reconsider such a reductive stance before engaging in discourse surrounding a subject, but also to do a little more research about the terms sex-positive and sex-radical, which engender a lot more than simply fucking. Sex-positive and sex-radical are not synonymous with the free love movement, either. Nor is the free love movement just about having lots of sex. I'll even provide you with the wikipedia pages to get you started:
Sex-positive
Free love
Also, there are many elements of Upstate Feminists that seek to be inclusive, take a less offensive approach to sort of placate people's discomforts. However, providing people with an innocent, feel-good sort of movement that they can feel entirely at ease with is not the aim of this campaign -- it is to draw attention to sexual stigmatizing that occurs on a constant basis in American society and the media and to bring awareness to sexual diversity (which includes but is not limited to the LGBTQ community, alternative forms of heterosexuality, and even asexuality). We want to make people uneasy. So, in-your-face is kinda the goal with this one. AND there is a body of evidence suggesting that short-term strategies such as toning down radical rhetoric to increase general interest are not always effective in the long-run, that they may even serve to compound and reinforce existing conservatism.
So yes, in short -- the stickers are at least (and thank you for demonstrating this) opening up discourse surrounding the subject. They also speak to the larger issues of sex in the media and consumer culture, and they reinforce in a very poignant and simple way that personal choice involved in sexuality.
Thanks for askin'...-- Andrea
Posts
24 comments:
my sweetie is so smart. xoxo
to address the accusation of being "half-politicized" ....
Are you (Fuk)ing paying attention?!
iFuk is being launched during a time when the political climate is charged to max power with sexism. And while the arena of campaign politics is not iFuk's intended target garden in which it hopes to blossom (though it, to be sure, could be) this is a simple example of just how politicized iFuk truly is.
iFuk who I want.
iFuk when I want.
iFuk how I want.
there is nothing more political (in the opinion of a quasi-trans queer boi living in the south) than reclaiming the bedroom (errr... wherever) as one's own environment, safe haven, or playground in which to frolic as one sees fit. Countless legislation, public opinion, and social implications have abducted sexuality and iFuk is the launch of a nationwide search and rescue to get it back.
-Stacey
Stacey Haney, you rock my ass.
In fact, iFuking love you!!!!
Love,
Drea
"(which includes but is not limited to the LGBTQ community, alternative forms of heterosexuality, and even asexuality)"
Andrea, I totally love you for this! As a homoromantic kind-of-genderqueer asexual who identifies as part of the queer movement, I can admit my skin did crawl a little when I first saw the logo...but then I got to thinking about it. Now I'm all for it.
Why? Because I'm tired of the stigma surrounding people for what they do (or don't do) in their bedrooms. We need to be controversial instead of hiding from the fact that sex is royally (fuk)ed up.
-Sarah
This is fun.
Lemme just start by saying that the "free love" thing was more of a supplemental curiosity. I never intended for it to be part of the immediate discussion. But I do appreciate your deigning to present me with the Wikipedia links so that I might beef up. I suppose the failure was my own; I didn't make my intentions there clear. Which I think is just an obscenely appropriate illustration of the following argument:
Call it placating if you want, I call it compromise (do you think these other feminists who are trying to be, gasp, inclusive (how dare they) respect your elitist and condescending nod to their attempts at reform?). A lot of people would argue that it's the responsibility of the one teaching to make the lesson understandable to the student. Does that mean dumbing down and softening up? I don't think so. I don't doubt that your proposed method can be successful, I just wonder if it will be with your target audience. So, at the risk of sounding repetitive, I have to say that this strikes me as more self-indulgent than philanthropic. I would equate this facet of your campaign with those adorably fallible bible-thumpers that stand on the streets waving their signs that proclaim AIDS KILLS FAGS. And I would present them with the same I argument I present to you now. In case it's not crystal clear at this point, I'm not for partisanship, I'm for cooperation. I don't have any problem with the word 'fuck'. My point was simple, and I think it stands firm. I never said that offending people would fail to open a discourse, nor did I claim personal offense. What I did say was that in offending them you have set the tone for the conversation and possibly made it more difficult to make your point land in a constructive way. Meaning, while they may be talking to you, they aren't necessarily listening. If I was throwing around the word 'cunt' and then telling people that I was trying to eliminate gender bias in language or some contrived thing akin to that, do you think the outcome would favor my supposed agenda?
To be honest with you and myself, all I was really asking was how you think this whole culture jamming thing is going to help. And I pose that question again. You said yourself,
'...reactions...demonstrate discomfort. For instance, some people's skins crawl when they see the word "fuck,"...which might lead them to disavow an entire campaign because they can't stomach the implications of one of the dirtiest of words. All this before they even decide to do their homework on what the campaign entails.'
Maybe you're right, maybe those people reacting should get up and do their homework. I only posit that, maybe the very people that would be inclined to get up and do that homework are already educated enough to see your point without you having to run an entire campaign for their educational benefit. I think you've hit it on the head when you say that the stickers speak to the issues of sex in the media and consumer culture, but beyond that I think you're grasping. Re-appropriating? C'mon. This is little more than free advertising. Re-appropriation may very well be a myth to a large extent. Most people, without further explanation of the logo's origins or meaning, will see 'iFuk', snicker or recoil, and think about Apple or other long since novel stickers (See: "farfrompukin", "GOT DRUGS?"). (See also: http://www.planetfeedback.com/volkswagen+of+america+inc/blog/negative+advertising+doesnt+always+work/308581 for an example of how people react to assaults on their senses.) (In further response to this re-appropriation business, lemme just say that Counter Culture IS Consumer Culture. There's no line. In fact, there is every indication that the counter-cultural critique of 'mass society' fuels consumer culture more than most regular ad campaigns. Were you not going to pay for the materials needed to make these subversive little stickers? Hell, I bet you're on an Apple right now! But I digress...)
In case you're too busy getting up in arms to catch on (which would only further support MY argument), allow me to reiterate: I SUPPORT YOUR CAUSE, I just question your methods and what appears to me to be a little bit of arrogance. The discourse that I began was not surrounding a subject at large, but a slogan (that includes the "half-politicized" thing as well-- you wanna make a difference? Lobby, write, etc., for those of you that misunderstood.) If you surveyed a large, randomly selected sample of men and women and showed them the logo 'iFuk', 'poignant reminder of personal choice' would probably not be what they first think. What do you think when you hear it? I'd sooner think that it's got something to do with animal passion or a base self-gratification. Is that what you're after? Or are you after mutual respect? Maybe you're completely out of touch with the demographic you hope to affect, maybe you haven't really considered what that demographic actually is. In any case, my 'virulent' attack (that's a bit much, don't you think?) was not on getting a discussion rolling, it was on what I perceived to be self-indulgence and self-righteousness. That's all.
iFuking hope you all have a great day!
P.S., Freak out all you want about what I say, isn't this what you're after? People talking?
XOXO
P.P.S., It may be worthwhile to take note of how the logo is dividing people already. I say again, is this the agenda? Us v. Them? Just bear in mind that emotional reactions and thoughtful exchanges tend to border on mutually exclusive.
I'm far too exhausted at 12:33 am to get further into the intricacies of this, but I really think, dearest mediocritease, that we are actually arguing the same point: approach. You don't like mine and I don't like yours. You clearly have not taken the time to understand what we've been reiterating all day. THIS campaign is a small portion of a whole. It IS the controversial element. I stand by the fact that it is the unapologetic APPROPRIATION of a symbol brimming with implications and sources of discussion that I could write you a fucking manifesto about... But not tonight. Tonight, I just want to speak to the approach you've taken. Nothing about the way I blogged the initial campaign idea and logo actually said anything offensive. It was a tone of excitement and eagerness. It was a picture. Of a word you yourself say you don't find offensive. And a mission statement beneath it outlining an inclusive campaign aimed at promoting diversity. It made no reductive mentions. It made no exclusive claims. YOUR response, however, introduced the element of animosity into the discourse that apparently has begun. What is self-gratifying out of this? Really? In trying to figure out which one of my misogynist facebook buddies you were, the only thing I could ascertain is that you are just bent against culture jamming and guerrilla-style cultural critiques in general. And you know what? If this was the entirety of our campaign, the entirety of what we're doing and have in the works to do, then I might grant you the self-gratifying element to this. I just might. Because as an ardently Marxist feminist, I want nothing less than to be identified with an idle movement. However, this element of our activism this year, our own foray into the land of culture jamming, exemplifies a phrase that we have taken on with great pride: playfully militant. Unless an individual has a complete aversion to the word fuck (in which case they're highly unlikely to pay more than lip-service to a campaign surrounding sexual diversity), I think the tongue-in-cheek component to the logo is self-evident. I will address this further in the morning...
Like I said, you wanna rag on us about approach, though, and I might encourage you to go back and survey the accusational tone you introduced. We wanna talk divisiveness? There ya have it. I propose that we bring this back down to a less bitey, intellectually driven conversation that focuses more on theory rather than accusations of self-gratification. Because your tone of superiority doesn't indicate an attitude at alllllll...
So tomorrow: it's on. I look forward to discussing this with you further and just ask that we can both go into it as calm and level-headed intellectuals rather than bratty little bloggers... I hope we can, through conversation, bridge the impasses that we've apparently reached to at least come to some sort of understanding, even if that is that we're operating from two entirely conflicting ideological standpoints.
Night, night, mediocritease...
-- Andrea
And ok. I know I said I'm going to bed, but now I'm fired up and not in an entirely negative way. I am currently exorcising further speech of bitey comments as well. I do sense a genuine desire on your part to engage in a legitimate discussion regarding this. So I'm not going to go back and proofread the irritation out of my own past post, but I'm pledging to refrain from any finger-pointing/ back-biting/ etc. in future responses to you, mediocritease. And as someone who does identify wholly as a marxist, I think the discussion can get really interesting here...
Ok. Good night, dear mediocritease, for real this time.
Mediocritease I believe your dismissal of culture jamming is extremely naive and ignores the world around you completely.
We live in a world where advertising methods have become increasingly the only effective methods of communication and
hiding bits of information in controversy and or entertainment is increasingly the only way to get through.(one need
only observe the statistics that people who get their news from the daily show are more knowledgable about world affairs
than those who get their news from network or cable news.) Your reduction of this logo to simply another offensive
slogan(got drugs?) ignores the subliminal effectiveness of taking a deeply ingrained and benign logo and integrating
it with a cultural taboo thus using the banality and safety one associates with the iPod to pull the word and act of
Fuck to a middle ground where suddenly Fuck just FEELS less threatening. While I believe that this campaign is smarter
and actually has more facets of ability to effect the individual even your example of "Got Drugs?" is offbase. The "Got
Drugs?" bumper sticker is obviously very "hardy har har I'm a stoner are you?" but do you think that anyone would have
been able to drive around with that bumper sticker in the fifties? The very fact that drug use has been softened by
pop culture is one reason laws have gradually softened towards the user. With a shift in cultural norms comes a shift
in official stance. No one is saying this is the end all be all answer to changing societies outlook on sex. It's just
one cog. Baby Steps. I think the best way to illustrate the thought process is with marshall mcluhans tetrad of media
effects:
Enhancement: This campaign amplifies a social taboo to the point that one is confused by it's flagrant use. One's inner dialogue begins along the lines of "why isn't this person ashamed of what they are proclaiming?"
Obsolescence:Suddenly the taboo is made facile. As a weapon of control, feelings of guilt for one's sexual urges and practice no longer have any power over the person making the statement.
Retrieval:The campaign then recovers the person making the statements self-worth in this hypothetical individuals
own sexual urges and practice.
Reversal: When pushed to saturation the campaign will have effectively removed the teeth from a taboo that ultimately is destructive to peoples self-esteem and general ability to enjoy sex which quite obviously is the
single most powerful cornerstone of human existence. As long as people have feelings of guilt about their own healthy sexual urges we will continue to live in a world of one Larry Craig after another. People lashing out at others to express their own self-loathing and simply making life more difficult for themselves and others like them. This campaign says iFuk it doesn't say how iFuk and as with Jazz what isn't said becomes the most important part. What the campaign truly effects isn't a spit in the eye of conservatism but bifurcated affirmation for the person making the statement and the observer of the statement. If one wears a t-shirt with the slogan, one has gone the extra-mile and is so
comfortable with the statement they are willing to advertise it. But more importantly is where the people confronted with the slogan come in. When one encounters a sticker on a light post, identification with the
person making this statement is completely removed. The person observing the stickers inner dialogue is no longer "well that person is a whore who likes to fuck" the persons inner dialoque can be nothing but simply "I fuck". When this person states this to themself it becomes an external affirmation of an internal
process.
This is where the guerilla aspect becomes productive. Your noble assertion that these women should soften their approach
and speak reasonably with the general public ignores what advertising agencies all know. The general public has no
time nor interest in sitting down and talking on a reasonable level. You have to capture their interest subliminally and on a base level. This isn't a dialogue its a probe. I thank you for bringing up what was bound to be THE argument against this campaign and giving upstarts the chance to address it from the beginning.
Could that be Upstate Feminists ONCE AGAIN--or perhaps I should say, AS ALWAYS--not being inclusive? Not caring what fellow students, both budding and fully blossomed feminists, might think or *gasp* want? I know feminism exists on the USC Upstate campus. So I beg of you, why in the world is a group as widely publicized as Upstate Feminists so poorly attended? Do the names Andrea Miller and Stacey Haney ring a bell? Ding. Ding. Ding.
I think it's awesome how people are using a small component of a campaign to vent their particular frustrations at individual students instead of addressing the issues at hand with any sort of clear reasoning.
Hats off to you, lifelongstudent.
Rhett...
To say that people who get their news from the Daily Show are potentially more knowledgeable about world affairs than those that watch cable news is, in my opinion, unqualified and a bit of a stretch. The Daily Show boils down a string of complexities into a few jokes about the basics of the matter. More reductionism. And I say this as a fan, not someone who condemns the Daily Show. I suppose it depends on what cable news shows you're watching. O'Reilly Factor? Not a good source for the meat of the matter. Others, maybe more so. I'd be interested in seeing these statistics. But that's another discussion entirely.
I agree that the "Got Drugs?" example was a little off base, but I meant only that the appropriation of a corporate logo for use in some kind of subcultural context is nothing novel and not likely to grab someone's attention in a life or mind changing way. The message may be different, but the means are the same, and tired. After being inundated with logos of this nature, people stop paying attention. In much the same way that people have stopped paying attention to the endless barrage of advertisements they experience on a daily basis. If you ask someone to name all the ads they've seen in an hour or so, only a small fraction will be recalled. Try it, you might be able to name three of four of the hundreds. The rest are pushed back or ignored entirely to make room for whatever is a greater priority for that person's span of attention.
I understand and agree that by associating a cultural taboo with a benign consumer product you pull 'fuck' to a middle ground, effectively (in theory) softening and ultimately changing cultural norms, and, hopefully, the laws that reinforce them. I considered this before even returning to this post. But, this is still theory and largely a matter of context. After all, it would be more of a task to chart the changes in pop culture/official stance that make up the modern history of drug culture than to merely claim one did such and such to the other. And if you haven't noticed, as much as pop culture has changed in favor of the drug culture, the official stance really hasn't. Penalties are largely just as extreme as they have always been, and despite evidence indicating its ineffectiveness, the war on drugs marches on. In fact, you might argue that the shift in cultural mores has only served to make people complacent in the realm of true activism. "So what if it's illegal, everyone does it." Sound familiar? Isn't the fact that it's still illegal more important? I don't mean to be entirely dismissive of this portion of your argument, I recognize that pot is being decriminalized in some areas, but I think what I'm saying is something to consider.
Dictionary.com lists the following definition for 'naive':
2. having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous: She's so naive she believes everything she reads.
I don't think it's entirely fair to level such an accusation at me. I don't think there's any record of culture jamming being responsible for any major changes. As a practice it's really not even that old. Contributions made, I'm sure, but that's not enough to laud it as a definitively effective form of protest. McLuhan's theories are insightful, but without supporting evidence, they are just theories. I'm not saying this evidence doesn't exist, I just don't have it in front of me and have to construct my argument accordingly. I also have to argue that in failing to present me with said evidence while in tandem arguing in favor of McLuhan's theories, you might be called naive yourself. I posit once more that the people that react to the rippling utilization of such a taboo in the way that McLuhan predicts are not really the target audience for this campaign. If nothing else, I offer my preceding comments as evidence standing contrary to what McLuhan proposes regarding the enhancement portion of his theory. And lemme add, if I had been presented with a plan of action for this campaign other than mass stickering, I might have reacted differently. I took the information I was given and formed an opinion, which is what should be expected of many of the people seeing these stickers on the streets. As for obsolescence, well, I don't really argue with the use of the taboo as a means of self-affirmation. Wearing it on a t-shirt and throwing it on a lamppost are two fairly different things, however. Your own assertion that people seeing these stickers will come to identify with them on some universal level ignores the fact that emotional reactions are far quicker than rational consideration. Once someone identifies and decides that something is simply offensive for the sake of being offensive, they will become dismissive, especially if the stickers bear a slight resemblance to commonplace graffiti, which, while some may argue is an art form, countless others fail to appreciate as such. If people at large don't have time, energy or patience to sit and talk on a reasonable level, what makes you think they will behave any differently when confronted with what comes across initially as a very base message slapped haphazardly on a wall on their downtown streets?. I don't think you can stress context enough. Outside of any elaboration on the idea behind the stickers, people are likely to simply react. Like conventional advertising, obscenity is something people are bombarded with on a daily basis, and are not likely to mark one expletive over another for further consideration unless something more is there to prod them.
I appreciate your making an effort to speak to me on a common level and I love your insight, I just don't entirely agree. (In turn, I don't entirely disagree either...)
Andrea...
I agree not to go back and nitpick over your own crude remarks made in frustration, except to say, misogynist? Have I said anything to indicate my gender or sexual preference? Do you know what my attitudes are exactly in regard to conservatism and liberalism? Or have I just presented an argument (albeit, in a somewhat negative tone) that you didn't appreciate? I didn't realize that this campaign was about women exclusively, I thought it was about sexuality as a whole. Now, I admit, when I threw the 'cunt' argument out there, I was pushing buttons. But it was to serve my point. Reactions often (not always) impede constructive progress. I merely gave you what your sticker campaign is not unwittingly begging for. You want to lead an in-your-face approach, utilize controversy? You need to be prepared for reactions far worse than mine. And if you really wanna change minds, when you're met with these reactions you might do better than disdainfully throw some Wiki links out there and essentially tell the one reacting to fuck off. I would argue, vehemently, while providing examples, that we have both been yelling down from pedestals a little, and I apologize for initially belittling your campaign, but your responses have been very telling, my dear. For what it's worth, I don't think we really have any ideological differences. I thought I made that clear. My offense has been altogether an illustration of the point I've ultimately tried to make. That being said, I feel like from this point forward it will just be more back-and-forth, and it's a little tiring. I agree not to trivialize your campaign any further, as I do support the cause, and I wish you the best of luck.
Peace, I'm out.
why is there always one person being cranky & doing nothing & taking up the time & energy of the people who are trying to do something?
do something. don't sit on the sidelines & critique. it'll just make you bitter in the long run.
Critiquing is doing something. It's called revision. It's part of every constructive process. As an apparent author, Helen Boyd, one would suspect you recognize that much.
Anyways, I went back on my word, and I apologize. I was idling and wondering if anyone had posted anything thoughtful in response. I leave again, disappointed. I'm done now, I promise.
Night night!
wow. really? seriously? ;)
that's all you got?
-Stacey Haney (see how i sign my name...?)
also... to keep in line with our (half)politicized campaign... just want to throw out the worn out but very true slogan "if you don't vote, you can't bitch"... when was the last time you used your voice to vote in UF, lifelongstudent?
Must say that I personally have decided to heed the brilliant words of Helen Boyd:
"why is there always one person being cranky & doing nothing & taking up the time & energy of the people who are trying to do something?
do something. don't sit on the sidelines & critique. it'll just make you bitter in the long run."
The point of this campaign, though partially about opening up a discourse surrounding the direction the campaign is taking, is really about taking action. I feel that expending inordinant amounts of energy responding to blog comments detracts from the general mission of what we're attempting to do. I also feel that I have adequately addressed all of my own opinions regarding this blog post-- all I would be doing from this point forward is either ending up sounding redundant or just getting bitey in response to people. Neither of those options seem like ideal ones to me when my time can be better spent working on things for a cause I feel strongly and passionately about. So unless there is just something that's eating me alive to say -- I'm going to exit from the discussion.
But I do have to agree with Stacey in reminding anyone who may have personal frustrations with any aspect of Upstate Feminists, that it is a STUDENT-DRIVEN group. You have both a voice and a vote in the organization.
-- Andrea
We. You. They. Us. How loudly these words speak to a reader, a listener, both informed and welcome, and uninformed and new to these topics. These words divide, establish a distinct contradiction between what is right, or good, the definition of which seems to depend on personal politics, and wrong, bad, ignorant, uninformed...
The purpose of this campaign is stated to be an enhancement of an existing movement, created and nurtured to bring light to the dark areas left out by the so-called mainstream activism. Jolly good. When I read these responses to any dissent, though, I am reminded of one of the great ironies on which this country was founded.
Puritans came to America to escape persecution. Once they arrived, they wasted no time in establishing their own harshly critical and intolerant regime. Dissenters were not just unwelcome, they were cast out, castigated as a warning to others, and forever deemed inexcusable by the general public. Does this sound familiar to anyone?
The greatness of this country, this place that allows us to air our different views and ideals without fear of being jailed or worse, is that we can all be different...and quite often are. Those who are outcast by one section are welcomed by another.
Bearing this in mind, what purpose does it serve to willingly sequester genuinely relevant ideas and ideals, deeming them foolish or of less value than others simply because they are not your own? If discourse is the purpose, let there be such discourse, and cease the attacks against those who have done nothing more than speak out, and with facts to back their claims!! Truth is often debateable; what is not is the manner in which the debate is handled. Speak your mind, by all means. Before doing so, however, check that your mind is speaking, and not just your temper.
This will, of course, be very hard for some of the contributors to do, due largely to the fact that, in my opinion, thinking is the last thing on their agenda. Be that as it may, it is their right, isn't it? To act and speak and be without thought? It's not my ideal, but then, maybe I'm just different.
criticism is vital. it's useful when done in a spirit of learning and helpfulness. it's also most useful to one's own work when you use your critical eye on yourself, first, before slagging the efforts of others.
crit·i·cism (n.)
1. The act of criticizing, especially adversely.
2. A critical comment or judgment.
3. a. The practice of analyzing, classifying, interpreting, or evaluating literary or other artistic works.
b. A critical article or essay; a critique.
c. The investigation of the origin and history of literary documents; textual criticism.
Criticism. Such a word is tricky, with so many nuanced meanings and interpretations. Tell me, how does it appear to be most exemplified in the above posts?
As you stated, I did allow a bit of my irritation to show through toward the end of my previous post. However, your response merely proves my annoyance to be well-founded.
Do note, I have read your work. I was engaged and pressed to thought by so much of it. As an LGBTQ person, I was especially touched by your understanding and willingness to grow through the differences of others. Why are your posts here not a continuation in that vein, rather than an attempt to shame me for welcoming an open dissent discourse? How will we ever learn if no discussion is allowed? Learning is a priority you yourself cited, so why does it seem that here, just as on any right-wing extremist blog, that the only opinions welcome and appreciated are those that buttress the majority's stance? I am sorely disappointed, indeed.
As an additional note, you've posted twice here that I've seen, Helen Boyd. First, you slammed Mediocritease for critiquing, "sitting on the sidelines," as you put it. Then, you slam me for not appreciating criticism.
Well.
Which is it? You're reading a touch indecisive to me. Or is it only acceptable to critigue when the opinion bolsters your own?
Food for thought. Best wishes to you and yours. All aside, I'm still a fan. Just a critical one. :)
I think that you miss the point, wiseone. I don't think that Helen is singling you out for a critique of your post, but referring back to a previous comment that specifically brought up criticism in reference to her while simply reminding us all that it is most useful after being self-directed.
So I encourage everybody again to just take a calm step backward before jumping to conclusions... Defense mechanisms are abounding on this post and I think your comment illustrates that they are breeding unnecessarily biting and accusational responses. For instance, rather than addressing an issue that Boyd brought up for everyone to just think about, you turned the critique in a personal direction aimed at deconstructing her rather than just discussing what she brings up. I do think you adequately proved her point, though, in that post.
But yes, much more simply put -- I think we might should all cool our jets a little, as my grandmother would say in heated circumstances such as these.
Post a Comment