Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Another First for Dead Air!

FWD/Forward (aka Feminists With Disabilities for a way Forward) just started publishing this month.

This is a great blog, but unfortunately, I am not allowed to post there. (SEE EDIT BELOW)

Yes! This is a MAJOR FIRST for Dead Air, wherein I link a blog that has already BANNED ME!

Unfortunately, I went and pissed them off already by daring to ask why no bloggers over 50 were contributing and no bloggers over 50 are linked. Two major problems, as far as I'm concerned. Then I was brazenly redneck enough to offer myself up for linkage. (OMG! I forgot how UPSET everyone gets when you do that!) I've really gotta learn to keep my mouth shut and just let people have their illusions about how FORWARD thinking they are. Then again, I'd never have started a blog at all if I'd done that... so you see how confusing it can be, deciding when to speak out and when to stay comfortably and safely silent.

Well, still no answer about why old women are being excluded. It seems to me, once you mention something like that, steps should be actively taken. Certainly, if I was informed there had been ANY demographic group excluded from MY blogroll, I would be correcting it FORTHWITH and IMMEDIATELY. But then, I don't believe in exclusion. Since I (gingerly) entered Blogdonia over two years ago, I have learned that some people like to talk a good game, but still prefer to be exclusive, cliquey and clubby in their actual associations.

And as usual, asking for a link consigns you to the depths of Dante's Ninth Circle of Hell... it is probably considered the RUDEST thing you can do in certain highly-educated, middle-class areas of Blogdonia, although I still don't understand why and no one will explain it to me. (I just reciprocally linked someone today, who asked me to, for instance.) People ask to be friended on Facebook, don't they? What is the difference, exactly?

I also assumed most people knew that age and disability are intricately linked (witness the popularity of the phrase "temporarily able-bodied"--reminding people that age will impact the body) but FWD apparently doesn't want to talk about this or be reminded of it. (Why have a disability blog, then?)

I think there is likely another reason I have been banned, that some of you know and/or might be able to guess. (My kind particularly not welcome.) I won't get into it here, since I should be used to it by now... but after all this time, I'm still never prepared when it happens.

I will say that I am as knowledgeable as any other disability-rights activist. I have been writing about disability-rights issues since 1981, when I wrote a piece on Reagan Admin cuts to disability services for the feminist newspaper Plexus. I think I should have the right to be included on FWD. I am not a bad writer or a bad person. This banning, for no reason that I can see, is really a bit much. But "their blog, their rules"--and they have the right to include and exclude whomever they see fit.

The quality of the writing and subject matter is first rate, which is, of course, why I wanted to be included and why I wanted older women to be included.

At least they haven't banned my IP, so I can still read. At least, not yet!

~*~

EDIT: I have discovered that I am not banned from FWD. I do not know if I was banned, then un-banned (as I suspect) or never-banned, but I see from a comment on one of the contributor's blogs that I am not banned. However, my emails asking why a comment from days ago was moderated/censored (nothing obscene or gross in it) was never answered. When I asked repeatedly if I was banned, again, no answer. I therefore took it that way. (Wouldn't you?) I think if someone asks, they should be replied to--I'm old-fashioned that way!

Delighted that I am not banned. Good news. If this is the fault of their over-zealous spam-queue, it needs major work. If this is a communication issue due to being edited-by-committee, it needs to be tightened up considerably. Believe it or not, there are REAL trolls out there. --DD/10-23-09

~*~

EDIT: Disregard above edit. It appears that after all the hubbub died down, they went ahead and banned me anyway.

So, I WAS correct the first time. --DD/11-18-09

61 comments:

Bryce said...

banned u 4 saying it? sound like assholes 2 me, D.

burnt offeringz said...

feminist bloglandia is too f-ing ban-happy lately. i wont go to a blog that bans ppl for criticism. if they cant deal w/criticism, IME not worth reading . fuck them.

yinyang said...

Have you seen this post, or this snippet on the criteria for being on the blogroll?

Kaz said...

This post has been included in a linkspam round up.

DaisyDeadhead said...

Yeah, my specific objections are mentioned in that post (about older women). My reply to the post was censored.

Well, at least ONE of the women on the blog roll is not disabled and has never covered disability at all on her blog, so pardon my skepticism. ;) Obviously, its who you know and who you blow.

I have 42 tags on disability (in 2 years of blogging)... which maybe isn't enough? (compared to what?) But some people on that blogroll don't even have 42 posts, total. So, YMMV.

It's okay; I know the real reason for the exclusion. I just wish they'd be honest about it.

Dina said...

I'm sorry : (

From the little I know of the situation, I'd say it was THEIR loss.

I think the cliquish behavior of some bloggers is pathetic.

DaisyDeadhead said...

BTW, I didn't just offer my blog up for linkage just because I like links, but because I have bunches of COOL OLD LADIES on my blogroll that I have systematically hunted down over the last two years. I am very proud of my blogroll and that was what I meant...

La Lubu said...

Well, at least ONE of the women on the blog roll is not disabled and has never covered disability at all on her blog, so pardon my skepticism. ;) Obviously, its who you know and who you blow.

Hold the phone. Are you calling me out, specifically? And if so, you couldn't have done this by email?

I ask because I fit the description. I'm not disabled. I haven't had a post on my blog dealing with disability (yet), and no, I don't have 42 posts on my blog yet. (I have fourteen). And yet, I'm on the blogroll.

Look, I'm honored to be on their blogroll. I don't know how that came to be; perhaps it was because one or more of the contributors liked something else I've written, or comments I've made on others' blogs about how disability is one of the hazards of my profession and how contractors and their insurance companies try to starve people out---literally---during the course of a workman's comp claim.

I guarantee you I didn't "blow" anyone to get a link in the blogroll.

I thought you were too conscious to use a phrase like that. And....I'm'a go ahead and say it...old enough to know better. Shit, Daisy, I've spent the past twenty years slogging it out in the trades, where 'you're only here because....(the boss thinks you're cute, the boss wants to get in your pants, you're fucking the boss, blowing the boss, etc.)' is always levied against women, and especially if we survive the first round of layoffs (which frankly, isn't common. Women are almost always laid off before men.)

I wasn't expecting to see that odious bullshit reified on a feminist blog.

That isn't "just an expression" to me, and I expect you to get that, to understand why it isn't cool to use that phrase on other women.

Blue Heron said...

Since when is 52 old? We're spring chickens in some parts. Sometimes when I read your blog I get a mild depression because I didn't realize there were so many rules of hierarchal etiquette in Blogdonia. I'm just a rube who spits it out and sees if it sticks.

A fairly new medium and already nasty and institutionalized. I get people who are intimidated to post or comment because people are so damn mean.

Screw feminist, conservative, progressive, regressive, all the isms, lets just be ourselves. See how the chips fall.

lilacsigil said...

Did you ask them why? The criteria for linkage would seem to exclude your blog - age is not the same as disability IMO. They seemed to be dealing with your original comment openly and transparently, so what happened in between?

DaisyDeadhead said...

La Lubu, now, you know I have always loved you and still do. This is in no way YOUR fault. Why "call you out" for something that you didn't do? But the fact that you made the cut and I did not, jumped right out at me. Should I ignore it?

Lilac says I don't qualify under their rules, well, I simply wondered why you qualify when those rules don't apply to you either? (i.e. What did I do WRONG?)

"Who you know and who you blow" is an expression we use where I work. No, did not mean you "personally" If this expression offended you, I apologize. As an older woman passed over repeatedly in favor of younger, hipper, prettier people (not necessarily women), I have found that the expression sticks with me. If it's sexist, again, my apologies, but where I work? It does not only apply to women. (I am currently working some very long hours myself, which is why I could not even answer this until now. And this is partly why...can not give details but you can use your imagination.)

Yes, I would be honored to be included too. Thus, you can see how I now feel DIShonored for being deliberately excluded and banned. Since they like you, you might ask them on my behalf, since my NONE of my email get answered. I have NEVER been banned from a feminist board before, and I am completely STUNNED.

What if you were totally banned from commenting for the crime of simply asking why old women were excluded? How would you feel?

Lilacsigil, of course I have asked why. I have emailed them over and over. I finally just quit. I am simply not good enough of a reply. I am as confused about this as you are. Transparency? HA! They sure will climb Feministing's ass i two seconds over using certain words, but you'd better not question THEM at all.

Blue Heron: A fairly new medium and already nasty and institutionalized. I get people who are intimidated to post or comment because people are so damn mean.

Yep.

As I said, I think this is about something else entirely, that they far are too chickenshit to address openly.

Again, La Lubu, since they seem to like you, you might ask them why they banned me. I can't get any replies.

genderbitch said...

I know some of the people involved in the project. I can ask what's up and hopefully find out what's going on if you'd like.

Cuz yeah, this seems way what the fuck to the nth degree. Just completely nonsensical.

genderbitch said...

Speaking of (before I forget) am I in your blogroll? Cuz you're in mine and I'd like to be in yours.

Avalon's Willow said...

This is slightly awkward but I'm going to comment anyway. Last I heard Daisy, you were not disabled.

Perhaps I'm wrong, I could have missed a thing. There's a lot of information from a lot of blogs and sometimes I skim.


I know some of the individuals who created FWD. I know why they created it. I know the problems they've been having with Feministing. Which excludes disabled women's voices as much as women of colour and transwomen and no doubt also excludes older women among the middle-class, white, temp able bodied, het, cis women they do cater to.

But why should a blog about Disabled Female Equal Rights Champions, focusing on those particular issues, specifically include the blog of someone who doesn't discuss disability?

You discuss alcoholism, addiction, the politics of your state, the occasional racism post, hippie-culture posts and your constant back and forth with other feminist group blogs.

You're not on my blogroll because Daisy's Dead Air isn't a speculative fiction blog / or a chromatic speculative fiction blog. You don't qualify there and you likely don't qualify at FWD.

There's very much a sense, to me at least, in your words that you're Cinderella and everyone else are The Ugly Stepsisters - ie, rude, selfish, insensitive and uncaring.

It is particularly confusing to see ageism being brought up with such a sense of entitlement.

Avalon's Willow said...

PS: Are you also claiming that a group of disabled women, juggling their lives, a new blog and their disability need to respond to your comments RIGHT AWAY HOP TO IT KIDDIES?

What gives you the right to be a middle of the week priority in the lives of women you don't know and whom you are not treating or discussing respectfully because they didn't immediately cater to you?

Blue Heron said...

Cool. Feminist catfight. I'll make popcorn. Or you can turn your talons on an evil man (me) and blow off these unseemly ripples in the pool of collective sisterhood.

I think this one is just about to get really good.

polerin said...

Blue Heron: Into this brave new world we carry the sins and flaws of the old.

The Fabulous Kitty Glendower said...

I shall link you Daisy to our blog.

DaisyDeadhead said...

Kitty, you play hardball! :P

DaisyDeadhead said...

Avalon, hello. Good first question, which I blogged about here.

I have blogged about disability political issues, culture, activists and people, practically from my blog's inception.

Ironically, I stopped complaining about my health because I was worried I was whining too much, particularly after I broke my leg. Also (again ironically), did not want to appear "too old"...

I think most people of a certain age, don't easily fit into the sharp-edged categories of "abled" and "disabled"--which is one of the most salient characteristics of aging. That is one of those things I thought would be interesting to discuss at FWD, where these constructs of "disability" come from, and what they mean. (They tend to change over time and how old you are.)

I do believe that age gives us some insight in that direction.

Avalon, I am way passed any concern over linkage and now I am wholly focused on the banning, which I was given no reason for and I think is excessive.

Speaking of my arthritis, I spent a good half-hour typing a reply to the post on the word "vegetable"--a word I refused to use when in nursing school (eventually dropped out) and got into trouble for not using.

When I tried to post it, poof, gone. I had neglected to save it... so, gone into the ether. As I have said, I don't have ongoing access to the internet on my job, and such time is very precious to me.

So right now, the banning is what I am upset about. And it seems, well, weird, doncha think?

Or just mean, as Robert said. "how dare you question us"...and yet, they sure did question Feministing when they felt it was appropriate.

Avalon, blogroll whoever you please, I can dig it. However, I do think a blog looking for inclusion should include women over 50. I just do. Just my personal opinion. As you are entitled to yours. Yours blogroll, however, does appear include older women. You don't exclude, why are you excusing those who do? There are LOTS of disabled women over 50. I offered my blogroll (of which I am very proud), as an example of where to find some, if not me personally.

2b continued

DaisyDeadhead said...

Avalon: You discuss alcoholism, addiction, the politics of your state, the occasional racism post, hippie-culture posts and your constant back and forth with other feminist group blogs.

Maybe in the past couple of weeks. (?) I also cover a LOT of South Carolina/southern politics on my blog. It sounds like you don't read it much. If you click on the "disability" tag at left, there are 42 entries. Maybe not "enough" to qualify, but I can't help but notice, more than several blogs that were included. Which is fine, as I said, but don't expect me not to notice and comment.

What gives you the right to be a middle of the week priority in the lives of women you don't know and whom you are not treating or discussing respectfully because they didn't immediately cater to you?

Avalon, I dunno...same "right" you feel entitled to come here and preach to me all self-righteously on their behalf, I guess. Think up the reason, then answer it yourself.

"We often hate that which is most like ourselves."--Krishna, or someone like him.

Edit--

Okay, snark aside, an honest reply:

As an older feminist, perhaps I was expecting deference, which I realize shouldn't have. In my culture, we deeply respect elders; we have special love for the pilgrims in any field or area. (Not simply my 'birth culture'--this is also true for the ones I have chosen, the tribes I have joined.) It simply is a given. I have mistakenly believed this was a constant in most cultures. But I think in online culture, it certainly is not, and may even be reversed. IMO, this is because the internet is a relatively new mass phenomenon and therefore (by default) regarded as the province of the young. Its like the car-culture was the province of the young in the late 40s/50s, when mass car ownership became suddenly commonplace in the USA. In 2009, we do not especially think of cars as a "young thing"--and I realize that the whole culture of computers and the internet being so youth oriented will soon pass.

But sometimes, not fast enough for me.

In the meantime, it isn't fun being one of the few.

yinyang said...

I'm refraining from commenting on this one way or the other, because I feel like I really don't have enough information. I do agree with this, though:

And it seems, well, weird, doncha think?

But, if you haven't seen it, they did publish this comment of yours on the "vegetable" post, which is dated after your post here. So, erm, maybe you're not totally banned? (Or maybe their set time zone is different than I'm assuming?)

I don't know. Hopefully someone from FWD/Forward will respond to this post or genderbitch's query so that we have a better idea of where they stand.

DaisyDeadhead said...

(sigh) That was the second comment, not the long-ass one I lost. That was the short version I did to test whether I was banned after losing the first one. But yes, that's nice, since it wasn't there earlier. In fact, weird. (Fished out of spam queue? Where is the first one?)

Yes, maybe not banned.
Genderbitch, yes, you've on my blogroll since the ultra-fabulous Ted Kennedy back-up. I don't forget that kind of thing! :)

Sorta a follow up, but not really.

Avalon's Willow said...

Speaking of the internet as potentially or initially youth oriented culture; are you sure you've been banned personally and not your ISP (ie, someone else was banned for a comment and they share your provider)?

There's also the possibility of your having unintentionally said something ism-ist (or insightful for that matter) that required further looking into when a moderator would have time to meaingfuly respond. And until they could posting by you was put on hold.

Your other points:

1. My assumption to be blunt with you comes from infrequent, but I thought modestly deep conversation on and off for about a year or two.


2. I read your blog about once a week and the last I heard of your leg was so long ago I'd forgotten about it in all honesty. Re-reading your post from March jogs my memory of nodding at the 'My body's warrenty expired and all the parts are falling off'.

But lately you've been imprinting as all 'My Governor Is An Ignoramous - Heaven Give Me Strength' and 'Why Are These Feminists Ignoring The Passage Of Time?'.


3. It has come across to me, perhaps because I do not read you daily, that you've become more and more sore on the point of ageism. Which I can't begin to judge because I am hair trigger on racism these days - like. whoa.

But I know my trigger and manner has me coming across in a particular way and I've already accepted the possibile consequences of that; including possible misunderstandings.

Morever I've accepted that many of the things that seem obvious to me when I point them out - others' simply don't see.


4. Example of the above - I was not aware that I've included individuals past a certain age in my links/roll/list. I don't focus on age unless it is related to the functioning of the body, offspring or grand offspring or it relates to someone being underage.

I've accepted the fact that especially among Americans, many of my childhood memories relate more to the parents of my peers, than to people my own age. And even more specifically to rural individuals. Things like watching black and white tv, or listening to the wireless, having to use a stand-pipe, sewing your own bookbag, growing your own food, etc. These things that ping most people to recognize a speaker is of a certain age don't register to me.

I'm not going to claim everyone is like that. But I do think it is entirely possible that just as people look at me struck with whoa when I've pointed out certain racist things - other people are likely as struck at having ageism in their lives pointed out.

Privately I wonder how complicated that is online with societal pressures to stick within one's age bracket and the internet making age recognition somewhat looser; compounded with Internet time. Having been on line since 1996 makes me 'old' by some Net standards. Old, but second or third wave, however.

The internet has created a whole other concept of age and bracket of ageism.

(Cont...)

Avalon's Willow said...

Comment/Pt 2:

5. I can't speak fully to your concept of elders and respect. Culturally I am aware and immersed in interactions that echo that. But I do not bring that concept with me when I interact online. Online all I am is what I say and what I create and I judge other people similarly. I do not treat people as if being older than me automatically gives them authority when we are interacting online. The very concept seems alien to think of. Online is a different sphere in my perceptions; the fool and the king are equals. Everyone and anyone may carve out a holding and settle and speak their peace. There isn't really a need for the etiquette of offering up resources first to elders and the very young. With no need for it, at least in my eyes, the demand for that kind of acknowledgment would come across as someone trying to impress unearned authority over me for whatever their purpose is; it would be abrasive.


6. All this said - the biting and gossiping style responses of your commenters, and some by you, seem best left in a friendslocked livejournal, than in an open and public blog. Was all that interaction meant to somehow shame FWD? Into respecting you? Unbanning you if you had been banned? Was it the manifestation of some kind of sour grapes? Was it an attempt to crush something new and potentially fragile that had just been formed because it did not immediately fit with you?

And did you consider how it made you appear?

genderbitch said...

No news yet but...

Daisy, if a comment got through then you are definitely not banned. A banning won't allow any comments through in pretty much virtually any blogging software.

Did you consider the possibility that they just have heavy moderation on? WP has the option for me to not let anything post without direct approval. And I've had comments sit in my queue for days and days before I found them on just my relatively low key settings (that only moderate new IP's and new email addresses).

I thought you had tried to post and got a "You are banned" message like some forums and some blogs have embedded. I didn't realize that your comment just didn't appear, that's almost always just being stuck in moderation.

I really think that questions like this should have been asked before you assumed they were out to get you. Now there's a lot of drama abrewing that wasn't necessary at all. Especially if they come across your post here attacking them like this when they didn't do anything wrong.

DaisyDeadhead said...

Avalon: the last I heard of your leg was so long ago I'd forgotten about it in all honesty.

Well, it certainly hasn't forgotten about me, and is still attached.

Avalaon: But lately you've been imprinting as all 'My Governor Is An Ignoramous - Heaven Give Me Strength' and 'Why Are These Feminists Ignoring The Passage Of Time?'.

If I'm boring, don't read my blog. These are the things that have been on my mind, so that's what I write about. If my mind is too limited for your taste, please search for greener pastures.

Again, I think in terms of YEARS... I don't think simply in terms of what happened last week or even last month...You know? That is another characteristic of age. (Songs I consider new are regarded as "old school" already, for chrissakes.)

Avalon: It has come across to me, perhaps because I do not read you daily, that you've become more and more sore on the point of ageism. Which I can't begin to judge because I am hair trigger on racism these days - like. whoa.

Yes, I think you've nailed it.

But I know my trigger and manner has me coming across in a particular way and I've already accepted the possibile consequences of that; including possible misunderstandings.

At this point, I don't care about any of that as much I as probably should. Fed up. Reached limit. (In fact, some time ago.)

I'm not going to claim everyone is like that. But I do think it is entirely possible that just as people look at me struck with whoa when I've pointed out certain racist things - other people are likely as struck at having ageism in their lives pointed out.

Yes.

On an lj, a discussion of MAD MEN ended with me basically explaining to someone that YES, I REMEMBER IT THAT WAY, and certain expressions ("I'm in a good place right now") were not used until the 70s. MAD MEN is usually very good about anachronisms, so when they said it, BANG, it jumped right out. (You say what?) But nobody believed me when I said it. It was weird, as if my age rendered me too biased, or something. It is similar to being called out on any other issue, people deny, become angry, etc. But why would they think they know better than I do, what people said in 1963? Hello?

The internet has created a whole other concept of age and bracket of ageism.

I definitely agree! I am thinking this is different than what we deal with IRL. Trying to sort of define and quantify it.

There isn't really a need for the etiquette of offering up resources first to elders and the very young.

I disagree completely. The resources are virtually unknown to people of a certain age, many of whom are not represented AT ALL online, within certain communities.

The right wing, as I wrote here (read the comments for the in-depth discussion, which was pretty good), has gotten the memo. They are training older people to blog and Twitter and all the stuff I had to slog through on my own. They know they have a valuable resource to tap. By contrast, the online left acts like older people are just a pain in the ass, feminism included. (Maybe, feminism particularly.)

Your comment is a good example. Which blogger over 60 do you regularly read? There are fewer and fewer as ages climb upsward...why do you think that is? (it certainly is NOT true in the publishing world, as you know) Is that a fair division of resources? Do you think older people have no stories to tell? The reasons we aren't here en masse is primarily because we don't know how to use the technology. The right wing, as I said, got the memo and they now predominate on Twitter.

2b continued

DaisyDeadhead said...

All this said - the biting and gossiping style responses of your commenters, and some by you, seem best left in a friendslocked livejournal, than in an open and public blog.

I can scarcely keep track of one blog... are you kidding? I don't like "locking" stuff and keeping track of who has access... I think I'd end up losing my mind. I don't have enough time to catch up with everyone as it is. As I said, I do not have internet access on my job... when I get home after a long shift I am virtually SWAMPED with emails and stuff. It constantly threatens to take over my life.

Was all that interaction meant to somehow shame FWD?

There are a few more factors that you are unaware of, that I really do not want to get into here.

Into respecting you? Unbanning you if you had been banned? Was it the manifestation of some kind of sour grapes? Was it an attempt to crush something new and potentially fragile that had just been formed because it did not immediately fit with you?

Yes, I did want be unbanned, which I believe is what has since transpired.

That last question... when did I stop being my wife? Yes, I want to crush something new and fragile, like the way I tear wings off butterflies, right? Good God. Purple prose anyone? What will I be accused of next? (Yes, I told Linda Kasabian to off the caretaker TOO!)

And did you consider how it made you appear?

Sure.

Do you think asking nicely is the way to bring awareness of exclusion, or do people sort of tune niceness out? In my experience, begging nicely just makes people disrespect you more, but as I said before, YMMV.

Although I think its ironic I have to explain to YOU that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. ;)
My words in this matter may in fact not benefit me, but may benefit the next older woman who says these things, and maybe SHE can be the nice one.

DaisyDeadhead said...

Avalon, typo: BEATING MY WIFE, not being my wife. I am not my own wife, which is a pretty scary PhilDickian sort of thought, now isn't it?

Genderbitch, well, I am confused, since my comment was restored after many other people's went through. But yes, I will keep you posted also.

Avalon, BTW, the dismissive post at FWD, answering my age-concerns, triggered me badly in the way you have described here, and I was angry. I admit that I was injudicious.

But you know, when you ARE carefully judicious and polite, nothing ever changes...

Avalon's Willow said...

Daisy:

The question about how you might appear to others comes from you appearing to me as a white woman demanding something. If I thought you were only a white woman demanding that which you were entitled to - no explanations needed; I wouldn't have a conversation with you.

You've stated there's more going on that I cannot see that adds another dimension to the situation. Obviously I can't comment on that and I won't even try to guess.

But it seemed a valid question to me because, as you've stated yourself on the very entry that first led me to your journal; you have white, cis privilege. And in a year of white woman's tears it gave me pause to see someone I had thought of as aware of that privilege, act catty in a way I associate with those ignoring even the concept of privilege.

At the moment I have to believe that I cannot possibly understand the frustrations of trying to counter-act ageism and the exhaustion that must come with that, along with who knows what other underlying factors I cannot guess. So that there is more underneath your anger than what I can observe in the surface of your words.

But I feel the need to point out, especially since you brought up yourself that you deal with it too - the frustrations and exhaustion that come with being disabled, not able bodied, not neurotypical.

Your post felt as if there was little consideration for that, and more 'well here's another feminist group that's nothing but same old, same old' -- gotchaism is the only word I have for it; Putting the facts to fit the proof already declared in one's mind.

DaisyDeadhead said...

Avalon: Your post felt as if there was little consideration for that, and more 'well here's another feminist group that's nothing but same old, same old' -- gotchaism is the only word I have for it; Putting the facts to fit the proof already declared in one's mind.

I feel that you are doing the same to me.

My ageism-angst is likely a lot worse because I work in an industry that is very ageist, as I wrote. I am only now coming to terms with some of that and how big it is. And what part I undoubtedly, unavoidably play in it.

And yeah, there is another dimension to this situation, to say the least. I am not ready to go there, and have no strength (or time, currently at a premium) for it now.

Thank you for your comments.

Avalon's Willow said...

Daisy:

I do not understand what offering those physically older than I deference on the web would accomplish. And I have no idea how one would accomplish that deference on the web itself. Are you speaking of compassion and understanding for anyone who is a newbie?

As for offering them the resources first - as an individual I have no idea how you mean me to comprehend and process this.

Are you expecting older bloggers to be recruited first on blog projects and not those who have the time and energy and enthusiasm? Was part of your anger because you knew of older disabled feminists who weren't listed on FWD's blogroll? But your suggestions were not immediately snapped up?

Or that there was no notation on whether or not they were doing outreach offline that might impact older feminists?

How did my taking people at their words, word-actions, presentation online, become me dismissing the stories of older individuals? And at what point did I say older people aren't online?

As for the crushing of something fragile; most things newly created and born are fragile. Every fresh idea is a bit like a butterfly just out of the cocoon drying its wings. Then comes rumination and speculation and hopefully more gets built on it.

If you come across as thinking things are being set up wrong and need to be torn down and built up the way you would like to see them; in order to include the points you feel important - then yes, pointing at a new group blog and going 'THESE PEOPLE SUCK' is the power of word-of-mouth to, in this case, harm a thing.

Avalon's Willow said...

Daisy:

I did not see your post before I replied a second time. It was not an intentional attempt to overstep your wish to put the conversation to rest.

genderbitch said...

It's really not confusing, though.

If the comment went through then there is simply no way that you're banned. It's literally impossible, all of the software out there for blogs makes comments completely blocked (they don't even make it to the queues to be approved) if a person has been banned.

As someone who fairly regularly works with computers and software, I feel entirely safe in 99.9% guaranteeing you that you were not banned due to the fact that your comment went through (that 0.1% being my normal margin of error XD). My bet is that it's heavy moderation or that something is epic fucked on their site's comment queue.

I know that my queue sometimes drops perfectly fine comments into spam. It drives me up a wall because then I don't see them for weeks.

So I feel that you came down on their heads when they haven't actually shown any ageism, haven't banned or silenced you and haven't done anything wrong. I.e. you misunderstood what happened.

That's my educated computer geek opinion, one I feel is intensely accurate.

Lindsay said...

Huh. I never knew you were banned from FWD/Forward.

That's too bad, because your observations on ageism are really enlightening, and that's a particularly obvious intersection with disability.

(I am adding you to my blogroll, which is quite eclectic and ever-expanding. Mostly autistic bloggers, but also feminist, radical/progressive and science-related sites are on it. Heart and others are on it, too, since I like a lot of radical-feminist ideas, consider myself a radical feminist and emphatically do *NOT* believe in delinking everyone who disagrees with you on every tiny thing. Blatant hate speech, sure, I can see that, but not simple differences of style or opinion).

DaisyDeadhead said...

1) Avalon, if I thought those people sucked (something I have NEVER SAID) why would I want to be included? No, I am not some evil stepmother bitch, trying to destroy their fragile, saintly, good-hearted enterprise. Save Snow White/Evil Queen for your fantasy stories, okay?

Enough already. I am not the horrible evil cunt you are painting me to be, and I resent the implication.

2) GB, the comment went through, time-stamped AFTER this post. (Is what I find confusing.) I think they fished it out and decided to let it in only after this was written. After all, two other comments still didn't get published.

One negative comment I made still hasn't been published, from days ago. After several days of emails, asking "Am I banned?" with no reply, I decided, okay, I guess I am. If I wasn't they should have answered me and said NO. How else could I know? I not a geek and don't know shit about software. It was an honest question.

BTW, I told them I was blogging about the situation. Still no answer. If they didn't want me to blog about it, all they had to do was reply to my question. Just one "no you aren't banned" would have been sufficient.

Finally, Anna resent me the email from last week, but still did not confirm I was not banned. I have finally read it on meloukhia's blog, when she replied to ANOTHER PERSON about it. (not to me) So, just now, went and added an edit to the post, but only after I finally READ IT as a definitive statement. I have still not had my OWN question personally answered, as I said, she told another person, is the only way I know this.

Jesus H Christ.

And thank you, Lindsay, linking you also.

La Lubu said...

Daisy, thanks for the response. I couldn't get back here till now; I have the same issue with computer use that you do at work, plus, Capitalism: A Love Story was leaving town last night, so if I wanted to see it, that was my chance. (you shoulda been there. my daughter provided a running commentary in a not-so-stage whisper, since we were about the only ones in the theater (the handful of other folks there were doing the same---it was audience participation night! ;)

Anyway...yeah, "who you know and who you blow" isn't just used on women at my workplace either...it just carries a different meaning with women. With men, it means who they drink with or ride (Harleys) with, or golf with, or hunt with...or even who they are related to. With women, it either carries the literal meaning (or, the gossipy "literal" meaning, as in, hey....it could be true), or it's shorthand for "she has no ability; she's just window dressing." No one who uses it on a man literally thinks he's under the table sucking the boss's cock, but...(you get the idea). And no one ever assumes the men have no ability.

Blue Heron, perhaps you can explain to me why men can disagree with one another during a discussion without having either view belittled with a description similar to "feminist catfight." (how long did you have to think before that phrase came to mind? or did it just seemingly type itself?) I have yet to see a disagreement between two males referred to as a catfight or dogfight (I'm open to having my mind changed though, if you can provide a link). Think about that before letting your fingers do the walking...why women can't be recognized as respectfully disagreeing.

DaisyDeadhead said...

PSA, please resend attachment! I deleted without realizing there was one. Thanks and apologies.

(GB, take note, this is the level of my computer knowledge.)

Avalon's Willow said...

@Daisy,

Considering how much you keep implying that I of all people should know about raising a ruckus it is oddly amusing that you're treating me in this mode as if I'm being antagonistic.

You seem determined to make queries about disagreeability and anger into wide painted swathes of negative value judgements; perhaps sarcastically in an attempt to zing.

But you've cleared up just exactly what set you off for me at least - mainly your own interpretations of other people's actions and words.

passinthru said...

Well, perhaps parenthetically, I would say there are a lot of older women (at least) on the net. Possibly we're not reading, writing, and commenting on political blogs much, I don't know. I don't find angst and pettiness as fascinating as I used to, and I've been at this education stuff a long time. One has to pace oneself.

Blue Heron said...

Wolf lady, you got me. You've unmasked me for the brutish lout that I am. The truth is, I am new to this gender politics game. I can't honestly say that I have ever heard of men having this kind of "discussion" or disagreement. We are too busy scratching and spitting and talking sports.

I love the woman we call Daisy as a soul sister. I think she has one of the most interesting and best written blogs on the net. But its hard not to notice the ridiculous hairsplitting and jockeying for position that is going on in the online feminist community. Everybody sounds so frigging aggrieved.

I thought that as a penis possessor, I could take a little of the heat off and add a little comity and levity to the equation. Then you could focus on the XY victimizers that we know are always the real bastards.

I looked at your site and it's pretty cool. Liked the Trouble man video. If you care to, check out the Joni MItchell version. It's really strong as well.

DaisyDeadhead said...

Avalon, your ruckus needed to be raised. So does mine. For some reason, you do understand that about YOUR ruckus, yet ascribe bad motives to mine. WTF? This is what I don't quite understand.

I think ageism is an ongoing problem, and I will continue to hold to that position. You seem to think I should not even MENTION IT when I see it. (Are you serious about that?) I hope you realize I have blogged and blogged about this, left all manner of posts on every feminist blog in creation? This is not something I just started pointing out last Tuesday; as I said, I have been HARPING ON IT FOR OVER TWO YEARS, since my blog came into existence. This impasse is the result of much complaining, and BEING IGNORED. In the past, I even complained to one of the FWD contributors about HER OWN BLOG BEING EXCLUSIVE... and she has not changed this. She even acknowledged hearing me, assured me she is "working on it"--then this new blog materializes, looking just as exclusive as hers already is. Tell me, if this a case of African-American systematically excluded from a blogroll, would this concern you at all? If you had repeatedly mentioned it over two years, including pointing it out directly to one of the people who helps start this new blog? And they continue to exclude? Is this acting in good faith, or is this saying, in effect, we don't give a shit?

To put it as bluntly as I can: NONE of this could have occurred, my post, this conversation, NONE OF IT, if they had simply included an older woman in their (substantive and long) blogroll. Period. I could not have made any objection, in that case. Rather than do that, they have dug their heels in. Now, I ask you, does that remind you of anything? It should. It's remarkably the same, regardless of the issue: My tone is bad. I'm not nice enough. It isn't really a problem, blah blah blah. "My MOM is old, I LOVE old ladies!" Right.

Etc.

If you can't see the pattern, well...never mind then. But I can. Of course I am defensive; weren't you? Why are you taking the side of the people doing the excluding, rather than with the ones BEING excluded? Apparently, because you identify with them. Okay, but then take responsibility for that, and admit your own bias.

Since you asked me about disability, and you know my ethnicity, now let me ask you: How old are you?

Perhaps if you are pre-menopause, you don't get it. But I am confident that someday, you will.

passinthru said...

"Perhaps if you are pre-menopause, you don't get it. But I am confident that someday, you will."

lol

genderbitch said...

That's why I offered to look into it for you, cuz I've got the compy background to help.

I think we can all safely say you aren't banned now that you've confirmed it (which is what I figured from that comment going through) and I feel safe betting that the comments that aren't showing up are just caught in moderation or fell through the cracks into their spam filter (like how my asinine Akismet spam filter regularly spam queues tons of comments.)

So it's highly likely that nothing bad here happened and that there was a misunderstanding.

Now, let's pretend we know for sure, 100%, that no ageism is in play and this was a misunderstanding. In such a case, you just piledrived a bunch of women with disabilities with a ton of angry emails and basically threatened a blog war over nothing. On top of this, you're demanding responses from people who are dealing with serious health problems and energy concerns, who are running regular jobs, caring for children and running their own blogs. I know that there's been times when you've had a hard time responding to things when you're getting piled on by stuff, due to your energy issues from age, right?

Is it possible that this silence is a response to what they may feel is them being trolled? Imagine if someone commenting on your blog (a perfectly reasonable person who had useful things to say) misunderstood you or a lack of response from you as a purposeful slight and then went off on you in comments, through emails and for days. You'd probably ignore them or even tell them to eff off right? I know I'd definitely tell someone who emailed me a whole bunch of times accusing me of something I didn't do to go fuck themselves. They may not be as confrontational as me, though.

I've got an idea that might be helpful. Maybe cool the heat for now and send a friendly, light email pointing out that there may have been a misunderstanding and that you were wondering why your comments weren't appearing. Point out that, hey maybe it's the moderation on the site being heavy or whatnot. Be patient about a response, these women don't have a lot of free time and are dealing with time consuming health issues and disabilities at that.

That'll help dispel the feeling that they're being trolled by you (if such a feeling is present) and will maybe get some closure. I'll continue to wait till my friend gets back to me, if she knows anything.

Cuz yeah, it really seems like no ageism is playing a role here nor have you been cut down in any way. So the fury of the response to what was basically no harm or ill will on their part can't look good.

Sorry for the long comment. I ramble when I analyze situations.

DaisyDeadhead said...

Genderbitch: Now, let's pretend we know for sure, 100%, that no ageism is in play and this was a misunderstanding.

(screams)

See my last comment to Avalon, in BOLD.

As I said, I wouldn't have made a PEEP of objection if the BLOGROLL HAD BEEN INCLUSIVE especially AFTER PREVIOUSLY TALKING TO ONE OF THE CONTRIBUTORS ABOUT THIS MONTHS AGO. (Please read the last whole post I addressed to Avalon.)

So, there is good reason to talk about ageism, since it IS AND WAS BEING PRACTICED. They even admitted it in their 'response' to me. They are "working on it"--and that is supposed to be sufficient. (In other words, I should STFU.)

In such a case, you just piledrived a bunch of women with disabilities with a ton of angry emails and basically threatened a blog war over nothing.

See above. It isn't 'nothing.'

On top of this, you're demanding responses from people who are dealing with serious health problems and energy concerns,

As I am too. See above. (Have you been reading my replies to Avalon?)

I am no longer "demanding" any responses. (And I didn't "demand" I waited patiently for about a week after the first post was censored... it is STILL not published. How long do you propose I wait for this?) This post was my response, because I realized I wasn't getting one.

Is it possible that this silence is a response to what they may feel is them being trolled? Imagine if someone commenting on your blog (a perfectly reasonable person who had useful things to say) misunderstood you or a lack of response from you as a purposeful slight and then went off on you in comments, through emails and for days.

I made four comments on their blog, total. Four, and two didn't make it, for whatever reason. (I think I could handle four comments.)

Since I had previously had this conversation with one of their contributors, months ago, why would they think I was trolling?

BTW, they got plenty of hits from my link, according to my stats.

You'd probably ignore them or even tell them to eff off right?

See above.

I know I'd definitely tell someone who emailed me a whole bunch of times accusing me of something I didn't do to go fuck themselves. They may not be as confrontational as me, though.

And when Voz gets treated like that? How does THAT make you feel? I notice you defend Voz.

Some people get called "trolls" and some don't. Gee, I wonder why?

2b continued

DaisyDeadhead said...

Genderbitch: I've got an idea that might be helpful. Maybe cool the heat for now and send a friendly, light email

When I was friendly, I got no reply. When I was nastier, still got no reply. If you don't exist, people do not even see you.

I have no reason to believe anything has changed.

You know, GB, when its YOUR GROUP that is excluded, you sure aren't friendly and light. Neither is Avalon. This is utterly astounding to me, seriously. I can't believe such radical people are telling ME to go EASY on other people, when you and Avalon do NOT go easy on people when you feel YOUR GROUP has been dissed and deliberately left out.

Do you see this as clearly as I do?

Maybe you are telling me to go easy because you don't feel it the way I do?

Here it is:

I AM TIRED OF WOMEN OVER 50 BEING IGNORED. PERIOD. I AM TIRED OF THE EXCUSES, THE "WE'RE WORKING ON IT" (and how long does THAT take?), THE PATRONIZING PATS ON THE HEAD, THE ADMONISHMENTS (like yours, just now), TO SHUT UP AND CALM DOWN.

NO, I WON'T. ADD SOME OLD WOMEN TO YOUR BLOG ROLL AND ADMIT WE EXIST, AND THEN, I WILL. NOT UNTIL.

Next time Voz complains about the cis women, I will expect you to tell her to do exactly as you have instructed me to do. Okay? DO NOT ENCOURAGE VOZ FURTHER, please inform her that there was just a little misunderstanding, and she need to not be so strident! Tell Voz whenever people make the "is it a woman or a man" comments, that she should send a nice, friendly light email letting them know how uncool that is. She is far too confrontational! Why do you accept a confrontational attitude in Voz but not in me? Did you stop to think that "kitten" (or whatever that person's name was) who posted those photos, was just trying to have a little innocent fun? And then you go TROLLING?
Why is that okay from Voz but not from me?

Gee, let me guess why you find it radical and cool from Voz, but not from me. Hmm. (Maybe you FEEL IT from Voz, but not from me?)

That'll help dispel the feeling that they're being trolled by you (if such a feeling is present) and will maybe get some closure.

I have been blogging for over two years. I do not troll and never have. I should not have to "prove" myself after all this time, that I am worthy of basic respect.

Cuz yeah, it really seems like no ageism is playing a role here nor have you been cut down in any way.

(screams again)

Really? Because you realize they DID ADMIT I WAS RIGHT about the blogroll and contributors all being under 50? You realize this was something I already discussed with one of the contributors before?

Please see above: if they had not practiced exclusion in the first place, I would not have said ONE SINGLE WORD.

So the fury of the response to what was basically no harm or ill will on their part can't look good.

See above.

I am amazed at all the good will/benefit of the doubt extended to ageism: Overlook it, forgive it, understand it, send friendly emails!

Why is ageism not regarded as equal to the other isms?

If I ever said this to you and Voz, you'd have my head on a platter, and deservedly so.

genderbitch said...

Actually Voz overreacts pretty badly to a lot of stuff too. Something I have been slowly realizing of late. Not that she'll listen to me if I ask her to cool it, obviously.

Hell even I've taken the paranoia thing a little too far and found out later that, no, there was no malicious crap going on and was embarrassed at how things went down. *shrug*

I was going to respond to some of the points you raised, points I feel are wrong but honestly, in a situation where all we have is speculation, the end call goes to you. You've clearly made that end call. Since it affects you and not me, your call over mine. I'll just leave it at that.

genderbitch said...

And no, I didn't call you a troll. I said there was a possibility that you were wrongfully seen as a troll.

Not that it matters now.

Kowalski said...

Jesus F. Christ, what is wrong with you???

"Then I was brazenly redneck enough to offer myself up for linkage. (OMG! I forgot how UPSET everyone gets when you do that!)"

We did that as well. It wasn't a problem.

"Obviously, its who you know and who you blow."

That's bollocks. We don't really know them either.

Also how do you know how old the bloggers in their link list are? I know that at least four of them are over 50.

"As an older woman passed over repeatedly in favor of younger, hipper, prettier people (not necessarily women)"

This is just so unbefuckinglievable!
The blogroll features *disabled* people!
Quite an obnoxious assumption you make here.

For reals, I much admire your blog, but your cattiness and nasty gossip in this post really weirds me out.

DaisyDeadhead said...

Kowalski: (Stanley?) Jesus F. Christ, what is wrong with you???

"Then I was brazenly redneck enough to offer myself up for linkage. (OMG! I forgot how UPSET everyone gets when you do that!)"

We did that as well. It wasn't a problem.

"Obviously, its who you know and who you blow."

That's bollocks. We don't really know them either.

Also how do you know how old the bloggers in their link list are? I know that at least four of them are over 50.


I checked them myself. Which four?

And which blog-contributors are over 50 again?

"As an older woman passed over repeatedly in favor of younger, hipper, prettier people (not necessarily women)"

This is just so unbefuckinglievable!

Um, that line was about my JOB, can you read? (If not, go away. This blog does require basic reading comprehension.)

Do you work for a living? Because chances are, if you are female and find that unbefuckinglievable (what a cute, hip word, gotta write that one down) wait until you are my age, and you won't find it unbefuckinglievable at all.

The blogroll features *disabled* people!

I guess you missed the link, upthread. Oh that's right, no reading comprehension.

Quite an obnoxious assumption you make here.

And did you READ the thread?

When did La Lubu become disabled again? When did she post about disabled issues? Must have missed it.

Try again. And read this time.

For reals, I much admire your blog, but your cattiness and nasty gossip in this post really weirds me out.

Pertinent question: And how old are you again?

I could weird you out even more if I wanted to, but I'll just leave it here.

Don't come here showing your ass, until you know the whole story, okay? And you don't.

I have let the whole thing drop. Why are you stirring this up again?

I am seriously considering never mentioning ageism ever again, except here on my own blog. I have received a firestorm of nastiness over this. I see clearly how important old women are. (not) Any other form of oppression, even fat oppression, seems to be taken more seriously than ageism.

Thanks again for proving the point.

DaisyDeadhead said...

BTW...one of the things I notice is how routine middle-aged arthritis is not considered a disability by these new hip "disability bloggers"... notice how Kowalski announces with authority that it doesn't count: The blogroll is for "real" disabled people, not old broads with arthritis, you idiot!

One of the emails I wrote to FWD mentioned arthritis and that I was having a bad day; they said I was "ableist" for writing it. When I asked why a reference to my own arthritis was deemed "ableist", of course, no reply to that question. (?) Still have no idea what they mean, except that arthritis, being rather mainstream and inevitable, isn't considered an authentic disability, as fibromyalgia is. (Oh, okay. I didn't get the memo.) Notice above, how Avalon seems surprised I mentioned a broken leg from a whole year ago... does she realize that arthritis develops in old injuries? (Well, since it isn't a real disability, I guess it doesn't matter anyway, as Genderbitch said.)

That is the kind of thing I refer to. Just total disregard of my actual words.

As I said, I intend to refrain from mentioning the topic again on other blogs, unless the ageism is just TOO intense to ignore. (routine ageism is common and accepted) I have NO expectation that progressive bloggers care about ageism; I see that the majority do not. I will mention it HERE ...but even then, I will be very careful. I do not want another attack like Avalon's judging me an immoral person, out to crush a precious new thing.

And Kowalski, it "weirds me out" that someone with autism starts a post with "What is wrong with you?" --exactly the language used against you your whole life.

I am human being, and there is nothing "wrong" with me. Or you either, for that matter. Please refrain from further ableist language on MY blog. Thanks.

Kowalski said...

I don't know who Stanley is. I assume s/he must be a troll?
Why are you making this assumption?
I linked to my blog, so you can check me out.

"I checked them myself. Which four?"

It was you who made a claim that none of the people on the link list are over 50. And then you ask me how old I am? That doesn't make sense.

"And which blog-contributors are over 50 again?"

I wasn't talking about the contributors, but about the people on the link list, because you made wild assumptions about us.

"Um, that line was about my JOB, can you read? (If not, go away. This blog does require basic reading comprehension.)"

*Sorry* for misreading that line.
I was confused because you drew the bridge between your job experience and the blog list, thinking you got excluded for the same reasons.
Btw, I'm a developmentally disabled woman. It means my reading comprehension isn't always good.
If this is a reason why I should get lost, you're ableist.

"Do you work for a living? Because chances are, if you are female and find that unbefuckinglievable (what a cute, hip word, gotta write that one down) wait until you are my age, and you won't find it unbefuckinglievable at all."

Actually, I don't have to wait until I get to be your age.
I've rarely ever worked for a living, because I'm severely disabled. I need a caretaker to help me with really basic stuff. Also as an autistic woman I'm never "cute and hip", usually people think I'm inferior (just like you do), so I'm not considered for employment at all.

"I guess you missed the link, upthread. Oh that's right, no reading comprehension."

What's with that bilious tone?
I suppose you set the standards for ability and anyone who commits the heinous crime of missing something must be ridiculed in this manner.
Again, this is ableism of the most viscious kind.

Also, it's not all about LaLubu. You complained about their blogroll and made assumptions about people like me.

"Try again. And read this time."

Do you always speak to disabled people in this condescending tone?

"Pertinent question: And how old are you again?"

Actually this is an impertinent question. My personal details are not published on the internet for safety reasons. People with developmental disabilities are vulnerable adults and we need to protect ourselves from dangerous stalkers and bullies.
If you think blogging while female is hazardous, try blogging while developmentally disabled and female.
And again, you can't make assumptions about people's age and then ask them how old they are.

"Don't come here showing your ass, until you know the whole story, okay? And you don't."

Quite hypocritical, don't you think?
You complain about being banned for making critical comments, but do the same thing on your blog.
You made assumptions about people like me and that's what I was addressing, and you ignored my points.
Also it was you who did not post the "whole story", but demand that people know it to comment here.
I only addressed the points in which you were clearly wrong.
That people of your age are excluded from the blogroll.

"I have let the whole thing drop. Why are you stirring this up again?"

Because you spread nasty gossip in which you insinuate that we are a "clique" and that you are not allowed to ask people to be included in your blogroll. Like I said, this isn't true.

"I am seriously considering never mentioning ageism ever again, except here on my own blog. I have received a firestorm of nastiness over this."

Not from me, so there's no reason to attack me.

"I see clearly how important old women are. (not) Any other form of oppression, even fat oppression, seems to be taken more seriously than ageism."

Ironically you're ageist yourself by ridiculing me for using what you consider "cute" language and talking to me like I'm a baby.

Kowalski said...

I didn't call you an "idiot"!
It was you who talked to me in this condescending tone.

What is wrong with you refers to your attitude, not your mental state.

Kowalski said...

Your visciousness is unbelievable.
UNBELIVABLE!

"The blogroll is for "real" disabled people, not old broads with arthritis, you idiot!"

This is such a viscious misrepresntation of what I said.
I didn't say you weren't disabled enough. I said that people on the list are disabled, and your continued insinuation that we are young and "hip" is wrong.
I also didn't say anything ageist.
At all.
It is really nasty to put words in my mouth I didn't say.

DaisyDeadhead said...

Excuse me, you come invading my blog, all fired up with an attitude, the first words out of your mouth "Jesus F. Christ, what is wrong with you???" ...and *I* am the vicious one?

You got some fucking nerve.

Kowalski: It was you who made a claim that none of the people on the link list are over 50.

And I repeat the question, which four? You made a claim, now, back it up, please.

Actually, I don't have to wait until I get to be your age.

Actually, you obviously do. You do not understand what ageism is, and/or think it isn't any big deal. When you are older, you'll magically get it, and you WILL think it's a big deal.

What's with that bilious tone?

Um, you picked a fight...then you wonder why you got one?

Unbefuckinglievable!

I suppose you set the standards for ability and anyone who commits the heinous crime of missing something must be ridiculed in this manner.
Again, this is ableism of the most viscious kind.


You will not come here picking a fight no matter who the hell you are. Making an exception for your rudeness and nastiness IS ableist, and I make no exceptions. I expect you to behave like anyone else. If you can't be civil, fuck off.

Actually this is an impertinent question.

As I said, fuck off.

Yes, I ALWAYS talk down to people I believe are trolling. No matter who they are.

Also it was you who did not post the "whole story", but demand that people know it to comment here.

I did? Where was THIS?

This is my blog, and I can say, do, demand, anything I please. Don't like it, don't let the doorknob hit you in the ass.

Because you spread nasty gossip in which you insinuate that we are a "clique"

I do? And where was THIS?

So, you are here to defend them... no, that isn't anything like a clique, no sirree. (rolls eyes) Oh boy.

You complain about being banned for making critical comments, but do the same thing on your blog.

When did I ban anyone for that? I have only banned one person, an assault-rifle fanatic, for trolling me for a solid week. No one else.

Where are you getting this stuff?

Not from me, so there's no reason to attack me.

THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE OUT OF YOUR MOUTH WAS A NASTY ATTACK. YES, FROM YOU.

So, yes, I attacked back. Isn't that what you came here for? You wanted a fight, I give you one, now you cry like a punk.

If you are not self-aware enough to know when you have gone on the attack, you need to stay off the net.

Stanley Kowalski

DaisyDeadhead said...

Kowalski has just written a long, nasty post on her blog about me. As my grandmother would have said, she is over there calling me everything but a nun.

Here is what I posted, which probably will not make it through moderation... so I am cross-posting it here:

...

Hey yall, some points (cross posted on my blog, in comments):

1) It's been TROLL MONTH at my blog. Very serious, dedicated stalking and trolling, primarily from the NRA/gun freaks. But surely you can understand that when someone shows up with the name of famous fictional rapist and the first words out of their mouth are "Jesus F Christ, what is wrong with you???" ...I just assumed it was another troll.

2) I realized in reading your comment, that I assumed everyone knew my bio. Obviously, a big mistake... I started thinking why I had omitted probably the most important aspect of my life re: disability rights. And I realize that I am still crushed with grief... it is just like when I hear Roy Orbison or anyone else who wrote songs my mother sang in her band...very difficult to go there! :( In any event, my mother was born with a congenital disability and was regarded as "deformed" (the term "birth defect" was applied to her, on her birth certificate even). I am her daughter, and I was not supposed to be born.

I am her act of rebellion and defiance, and she often told me so. :)

I was informed as a young woman that I likely would produce "defective" children also, and grew up w/this knowledge and awareness. This had a profound influence on my life, as did my mother in general, a disability activist and EEOC representative for the US Post Office in Ohio (as well as popular musician/singer throughout central and northeast Ohio). She raised me "in the cause" and was one of the first "handicapped rights" activists, as they were then known. I do feel extremely knowledgeable. (I wish my mother had written a book before her passing, and tried to talk her into it.)

I have written about my mother so much, I assumed everyone knew that. TMI and all that...

Another intersectional aspect of this would be that my mother was born extremely poor, in WV... and the whole "inbred" stereotype was also applied to her, which was my earliest sense of class consciousness. I grew up very protective of my mother and strongly identified with her, even when we feuded. I have written of her so much, again, I assumed everyone knew.

2) My second marriage was to a physically disabled man (also an activist, on and off, throughout his life) who is my child's biological (not legal) father. I experienced a pretty rough time of it during our marriage, as I was interrogated about him virtually every day. I was also (again) warned not to have children, etc. I do not blog about this individual because we parted on bad terms and I do
not want HIM stalking my blog, too.

2b continued

DaisyDeadhead said...

Response to Kowalski continued...

3) In the thread in question, Avalon was extremely critical of my writing about alcoholism... this made me wonder whether alcoholism is classified as a disability or not. A friend of mine filed a complaint with the EEOC regarding being treated differently on the job after going through detox, so I am given to understand that it is--? Frankly, I dunno. (I realize lots of people DO NOT think so, including alcoholics.) I'm thinking of starting a thread about this, a new post. You are all welcome to post, if you are polite, don't call me names and don't ask me "what's wrong with you?" etc.

In any event, I was an alcoholic by age 12. Depending upon your definition, we can call this a disability. Certainly, I experienced it that way. Although I have not had a drink of alcohol since 1982, I have always had the extreme personality-type that accompanies primary alcoholism/addiction, which I have written about on my blog (like about Mel Gibson, etc). I have continued to struggle with issues with addictive behaviors and substances, most notably, orthorexia. Again, not sure if this is a disability, depending on who you ask.

4) Name-calling, such as "fucking asshole" is not a good way to make your point or to convince the asshole in question that you want dialogue. It's interesting that several people in this thread agree with the name-calling, then say I shouldn't protest that I am not a bad person. Well, you think I am, right? Usually, "asshole" is a word assigned to people one considers inferior or lesser, and that was my whole point.

5) I do think ageism is a problem in Blogdonia, and I hold to that position, whether its unpopular or not.

...

Anyway, I hope some of these points matter to you and/or your readers, who seem to have their minds made up that I am trash. If it doesn't, that's understandable. Either way, thank you for letting me post.

prefer not to say said...

i call bullshit.

why do these allegedly 'autistic' people /excel/ at snark while they claim to be uncommonly clueless & 'severely disabled'?

they're not so 'severely disabled' that they can't /quickly/ figure out how to troll & who to curry favor with online.

they know /exactly/ what is happening. they want freedom to attack & then you're 'anti-autistic' if you respond.

total frauds. don't let them run you, D.

Kowalski said...

Daisy, I'm really sorry I didn't know how much trolling is on your blog, because I tend to read it in my feed reader.
And I also didn't know that the Stanley Kowalski character is a rapist. (I'm not much of a movie geek I'm afraid) That's kinda creepy knowing this now. I don't want people to have any nasty associations with my name. :S

And I've only followed your blog for a maybe three months, so I'm not familiar with all the details.

The "What's wrong with you?" was just me being completely exasperated by a post on a blog I generally *like*. I didn't expect that kind of thing from you at all, that's why I was weirded out.
I certainly did *not* intend to pick a fight.

Apart from the line that you thought was a vicious attack, my comments were all civil.
Then you demanded I name people's age. But that is private information that's not public, and no matter how trivial, I'm not going to publicize anything people share in private. (Like a facebook profile that's set to "friends only")
It also exasperated me because many on the link list are people about your age and this isn't so hard to check:

Link
Link
Link

But what got me to thinking "Gah, asshole!" was that you thought a disabled person deserves to be treated with ableist condescension. Noone deserves bigotry no matter what they do.

"Asshole" to me doesn't mean a person is inferior, but mean. That can also apply to situations when we can be right assholes, (which I believe everyone can be at times) and after I tried to explain everything patiently, you told me to fuck off and put words in my mouth and twisted what I said... um, excuse me.

When I think someone is an asshole (in a situation) it doesn't mean I've totally made my mind up about them, neither do I believe the T & K readers do that.
Anyways, thank you for explaining some stuff, I really do hope we can get this mess sorted out, because here's the thing, I totally agree with you that ageism is a problem, and I do think that alcoholism and arthritis and anything else that disables a person is a disability and that disabled people have a right to define themselves.

And I still think this is a great blog for gawd's sake, even if this post weirded me out.

DaisyDeadhead said...

Kowalski, every link you provided was to a MAN my age, not a woman my age.

I said WOMEN.

prefer not to say said...

older women not linked & older men are? on a "feminist" blog?

more bullshit.