And then there were three.
I'd like to thank Temple for contributing to Like You Really Care. Today, she requested she be removed from the contributors, and I have respected her wishes.
Since the conversation that led to her departure is public, and because ultimately, this blog is my responsibility, I feel a need to react.
First and foremost: I'm not going to change anything about how things are run here. I don't feel guilty, nor am I asking anyone here to feel guilty. I don't think anything happened here that wasn't within the realm of natural sociological phenomenon. My only goal with this post is to solidify my position as the guy who provides the server space.
As I see it, that's all I am—the guy who provides the server space. That's not to deflect any slings and arrows. All it means is that it's not my place to censor any of the contributors. Only once have I had to step in on someone else's post, and that was only because I didn't want to lose our server due to an adult link posted without a warning. (I didn't change the link, even; I simply added the warning.) The people I have asked to join the blog have voices I believe are unique and without an outlet; I'm not above having 20 contributors to this blog, maybe more. Not to mention, I can't post every day like some bloggers do. In order to keep the content coming, we need a diverse team.
Nor is it my place to censor the comments. If I find what I believe is truly hateful speech or something illegal that would get me in trouble as the owner of this webspace, then yeah, I might trash it. However, I'm providing an open forum, and I'm proud to offer it.
I certainly do not consider myself an editor-in-chief setting the tone and content for the site. Interestingly, though, an overriding M.O. of this blog emerged, even when it was just me: an obtuse, arguably deranged, sense of irony. For example, I once referred to pygmies as, "the cornish game hens of the human race." I interpreted Kelly's recent post as irony, commenting on American apathy by weighing responsible management of his retirement funds against a preference for pornography and malt liquor. I thought it was funny, a clever satire, and I didn't find it terribly misogynistic, only mysogynistic enough for the joke to work. Nor did I find the comments that followed to be terribly misogynistic, either; I saw it as playing along with Kelly. In fact, in the context of the conversation, when I first read Temple's first comment accusing the post of misogyny, I actually thought she, too, was being ironic.
Of course, I'm a guy. With different life experiences come different contexts through which memes are interpreted. There are many life experiences I can never truly understand—being a woman, being an African American, being born with a disability. I do my best to respect different contexts, and I don't always succeed. I believe we all try to do our best, in whatever way we define "our best."
Is there a point to this post? Sadly, not really. As I said, I'm not changing a thing around here; I'm simply sad that someone who I thought could find a home here couldn't. That doesn't mean it's a bad home, necessarily, just not the right home for her. I hope Temple starts her own blog somewhere because I'll be happy to link to it and read it everyday.
Therefore, in conclusion, here's a picture of the incredibly sexy Orlando Bloom:
UPDATE: I cleaned up some grammar and ambiguous language a few minutes after I first posted this.
20 Comments:
I've never had the pleasure of personally meeting Temple; I can only assume that once, she possessed a sense of humor. If she's lost it to such a degree that she feels the need to no longer be listed as a contributor (as if just not contributing to the posts she finds offensive isn't enough), I for one will not miss her at all. For some reason, I'm reminded of the story about Michael O'Donoghue, the volatile one-time head writer for SNL; one of his sketches was once protested by a womens' group for being too misogynistic. O'Donoghue's response was to write back to them, condemning them for their lack of humor, ending with "I'd like to come over there and kick you in the cunt, but I don't want to spoil my shine." Maybe Temple can take solace in the fact that he died in 1994 of a brain hemorrage at the age of 52...
Okay, the post itself is my official I-pay-for-the-site statement. Lubow's comment above makes me feel like I have to make a personal statement, too.
No, you didn't know Temple, which makes your fuck-'em-if-they-can't-take-a-joke comment understandable. However, I'm sure the same comment is used when, say, African Americans are made to feel substandard in a country club. "Oh, that black man feels upset, feels out of place, feels offended? Well, fuck him if he can't take a joke." Or when something saccharine is referred to as "gay" and it upsets a homosexual -- fuck him if he can't take a joke? Where's the line?
Can we think outside of ourselves for just a second and consider that maybe, just maybe, Temple has a point? Is there a pattern of behavior on this blog, an undercurrent of misogyny? Richard, who hasn't posted in a long while due to Internet-access issues while moving, has professed his love of goth porn. Kelly has posted pictures of a topless woman and a woman with an egg in her mouth, and he linked to the above mentioned adult site. Hell, even I've engaged in some less-than-respectful comments about women, like my mention of the Frag Dolls, which, interestingly enough, Temple commented on and called me "a pig."
I may not be changing the M.O. around here. You and everyone else can do whatever you want. However, I'll conceed that maybe it's time for me to give some thought to how I view women. Sure, I think a lot of women are totally hot and I find myself consumed with lubricious thoughts. The thoughts are not the problem, nor should the thoughts be suppressed. It's HOW the thoughts color my behavior and social interaction, my conscious and subconscious interpretation of those thoughts. These behaviors are manageable and can be manipulated in such a way that is respectful.
And isn't that what we ask of our leaders on this blog at least three times a week? To be respectful of other points of view, other life experiences, other ways of interpreting social interaction? Maybe Temple's right and I should stop writing checks my ass can't cash.
I'm not going jump to a conclusion about this. Temple is my friend, and something that I'm ultimately responsible for -- this blog -- upset her to the point that she was no longer comfortable sharing with me this plot of land in Cybercountry. As her friend, I owe it to myself to try and understand where she's coming from. If I can't understand it, then I have to at least respect it.
I'm allowed to be upset by this and to allow myself an opportunity to perhaps grow as a person because of it.
OK Arlo, I hope you know that I apologize if my comment was taken as belittling your loss or anyone's point of view...
But truth be told, I have many friends of varying genders, ethnicities, and orientations. I make cracks with and against all of these people, to their faces, all the time; nobody has ever once expressed anything but casual amusement at my wise-assedness. I suspect that I get away with this behavior because the difference between my words, and the respect with which I treat my friends is the basis for a little thing called satiric irony. My friends are smart enough to recognize and enjoy this.
Again, it's never my intention to offend anyone, unless I'm using it as a tool to amuse someone and make them think - something that I applaud you, Kelly, and Richard for doing marvelously. The line of thinking behind Temple's actions and your respone to my first comment are the enemy of satire.
In the past, you've posted an axiom of Charles Ludlam's : "Evolution is a concious process"; may I remind you of another: "The things you take seriously are your weaknesses."
Thanks, Lubow. Very astute.
What do you expect? I'm a JEW. See, the satiric superhighway runs both ways...
I want to riff off of Lubow's comment about being a Jew because I'm one too and a big part of American Jewish culture is self-deprecating humor and morbid humor. There are also strains of insult humor which trace back to Europe (hence Don Rickles, sorry).
My son is a big fan of Mel Brooks. He's only 12. He's seen most Mel Brooks movies but my favorite is the one I'm making him wait to see until he gets older and that is "Blazing Saddles." The thing about that movie is it takes a similar tack as Lenny Bruce did when he used to ask his audience "Are there any niggers in the room? How about Spics? Whops?" His point was that we give these words meaning and we give them negative connotations. It's our place to challenge the power of those words.
But my son is too young to sort this all out. I think people who've been hurt because of the insensitivity of others tend to also have more difficulty letting the sting of words roll off their backs. If women and men were equal in our society, none of Kelly's comments or pictures would be taken any more seriously than the satire they intended to be. But it's not that way. So we have to understand that some people are going to be more sensitive. Sometimes you have to restate your intentions so everyone's clear and people realize that you're not looking to hurt anyone and if anything, you're asking them to laugh along.
The most disappointing thing about Temple's exit is that she'd left the site a long time ago and it would seem that a lot of it has to do with stuff that has nothing to do with the site. If she would have told Arlo that she doesn't want to spend her energy trying to contribute to a site that doesn't fit her that well, due to sometimes sophmoric humor, that would have been fine.
She hadn't posted in about a month and this controversy didn't seem to be stopping her mid-stride from active participation. It is made to seem that she was going whole hog and then was grossly offended and decided to go from 60-0 over the issue. In reality, it seems that this was maybe the final factor in her pulling out of something she'd lost interest in already.
In fairness to Temple, I don't resent her complaining about something she doesn't like, bringing something to our attention, or generating a discussion. That's a valuable contribution to a site also. But this half-assed retreat and attempted villification of Kelly is not the way to go.
And I really did put a cap on my chimney so birds and water don't get in.
Steven
Is it just me, or was there a Fosse reference somewhere in all this?
Interestingly enough, this is the first discussion on here, in quite a while, that's actually been an engagement.
1)I appreciate Arlo not wanting to censor the blog, and for the record that was never an intent. in fact that's why I'm leaving. Go on about your business. I'm not making this post to defend myself, but to reply--this is actually turning into an interesting discussion.
2) Steven's right, I stepped out a while ago. And this was in fact just the event I needed to show myself the door. Not a party I want to attend.
3) and the primary reason it's not a party I want to attend is because of the climate that exists here. It's a comfortable space for men--in its entire construction. I'd be more than happy--really--to have a longer discussion about this at greater length either here or with any of you individually. I'm going to go on about it a little bit here, but I know you don't really care because you feel things are fine. I don't feel the need to try to convince you, or to go on more than this here, because it's falling on deaf ears and i have to go to work in a couple of minutes.
But the reader's digest version of it is that sexism is still sexism, "open" or not. A lot of it, in conversation, in fucking around with friends, is in fact harmless. But tone of voice and body language are lost on a blog--and the meat of the words becomes clear.
And there's a big fucking difference between making fun of yourself and making fun of someone else. You make fun from a position of power. When making fun of yourself, you are trying to appropriate power and displace it in your own small way. It's an incredibly powerful tool.
The main reason why this sort of thing doesn't work when it's coming out of the mouth of a middle class white man is that, well, you've got the power. Is anything actually served by reinforcing it? Or are you simply burying yourself further into the status quo?
Defnintion of terms: power is a social construct and indicates ability to move and act freely in society. i know most of you fuckers don't have decent jobs, so don't turn this into "I chug malt liquor how can i have any power." You may be low on the pole, but you do in fact have the ability to say whatever the fuck you want, with little to no repercussion.
4) Fuck em if they can't take a joke only works as a concept when everything you do and say isn't laden with the "joke." It's not a joke if you live it. I haven't had the dubious honor of getting to know most of you as friends. Perhaps you're all just delightful and I misinterpret your words. but the fact that I did should give you reason to pause and consider it.
5) I did find kelly's post amusing. I think Kelly, to his own detriment since he can't figure out what to do with it, is very bright and makes interesting points. What bothered me was the image. And the reason it bothered me was because it was unnecessary. The point, the joke, the comment, the sad confession--it was made. Punctuating it with the picture was egregious, and it offended me. i personally don't want to be affiliated with a site that posts porn, regardless of how soft it is. I feel it's untrue to what i believe and want to be affiliated with. And since there was no estimable reason for it other than to raise eyebrows and cause you all to pass your hand over your cock--and since the only conversation that originally arose was how much you'd like to nail her--I feel the need to leave.
6) It's ok if Lubow feels I haven't got a sense of humor. I think he's a hack on stage.
Hey Lubow, I don’t think you’re a hack. I think you’re pretty damn funny. Of course, it's too bad that you won't understand this because "you fuckers" have "deaf ears", but I thought I'd pass on the thought.
Oops! I almost forgot. Here’s my egregious punctuation (NSFW). Now that’s misogyny!
I'd like to say that I appreciate Temple posting an explanation of her reasoning. Like it or not, it's thoughtful and I'm glad she's following her instincts or sensibilities or creed or whatever drives her. She's being true to herself.
For myself, I drive for UPS so my hearing is indeed deteriorating. I have a 5 year old daughter so I'm a lot more concerned about "mainstream" media and what it tells her about what she should and can do than about pornography. My daughter is really smart and screw the asshole who ever tells her she can't conquer some area of academics.
Good luck Temple.
Today was my first visit to the blog in weeks, having been occupied out of town and elsewhere. This was a very compelling conversation and certainly could keep going for a while. I'm a fan of this site and this was one of the more interesting (and extended, obviously) posts that I've seen here. I'm glad that Arlo promoted a free speech atmosphere, despite the controversial and conflictive nature of the conversation, allowing for viewpoints to be explained and debated. While it's unfortunate that Temple didn't feel comfortable continuing with the blog, I can still respect her reasons. Still, I'd say this site isn't hateful towards women, as per the Webster's misogyny definition, nor does it advocate hateful acts towards women, Ann Coulter excepted, perhaps. Regardless, thanks to Arlo for allowing an open forum, and credit to Temple for sticking to her guns.
Funny, I've had this exact same argument with Gail Stern. The only power words have, is the power we give them. The satiric point of sexist, racist, ageist, or any or -ist joke is to remind us of how silly we are to give those particular words so much power. It's funny precisely because it's wrong.
I try to make it a point to not get offended by words, but rather by actions.
But in a forum like this, words ARE actions. And "egregious punctuation" is an action. And bristling when you're called on your sexism, saying it's my problem not yours--is an action.
It's fine to be as bigoted as you want with your friends, if everyone understands that's a posture. Actually, I take that back. In my opinion, that's also bullshit. And if you were my friend (doubtful, I know), I'd call you on it. But regardless, that's a set of circumstances that is very different from a venue like this. And it really sounds a lot like "Now, I've got a lot of black friends, but..."
Words ARE important. Yes, we need to learn not to ascribe power to them. but see, they still have it. Just like the people who usually make this argument are people in traditional positions of power.
I thank those of you who respect my decision to step away. i'm staying engaged in this thread because it started becasue of me, and it's important.
Steven: Your comment about your daughter is also interesting to me. Please see that this argument, my reason for stepping out, for getting upset in the first place--isn't because of porn, per se. but because of the blithe use of insults toward women on this blog [note--not hatred, just disregard], and because of the gratuitous use of pornography, the commodification of women's bodies for your pleasure and or amusement. I don't know you but I also want your daughter to grow feeling strong and capable. This is all part of the same thing. In this society, women's sense of personal value is so closely tied to their perceived value as trade or decoration. In a world that suports that without question--in fact, gets angry and defensive when it's called out--it seems it'd be difficult for your daughter to feel intelligent when she's far more valued for the shape of her ass. It's all part and parcel of the same thing.
Oh, please. Temple, by your rationale, nobody in power (which seems to be anyone except you) is even allowed to make a joke. Being born white and in this country does not necessarily put me in a position of power. To assume that's the case makes you guilty of the exact same prejudices you're accusing others of exhibiting.
...and it doesn't at all surprise me that you think I'm an onstage hack; as a matter of fact, I can't think of a single production I've worked on that wouldn't have upset your apparently delicate sensibilities.
Finally, I'd like to say that Temple is entitled to her opinion; however, I think that her decision to be removed as a contributor also removes her right to criticize the opinions of others on this forum in particular. I wonder, when was the last time she instigated a conversation, before she quit? I would think that if I had a problem with the content of a public forum like this (thanks, Arlo), and was a contributor, I would use the opportunity to post material to back my arguments against the content in question; instead, Temple insulted the author and then walked.
Sounds just like a woman, huh?
Lubow: Master of the Donkey Punch.
oh what the fuck ever, dude. you're making my point FOR me. i'm entitled to my opinion as long as i don't share it with you? brilliant. hitting a low blow and then blaming me for it? genius. being purposefully obtuse in order to avoid actually examining your own practices? run of the mill for this crowd.
And here's a recap of the recent comments:
Kelly and Lubow are teasing Temple and she's getting upset about it. I've been lumped in with Kelly and Lubow. There is no consensus on the horizon.
Kelly and Lubow, you might want to lay off of Temple, she's not taking it as a joke, obviously, so why not stop?
Temple, if people tease you, you either have to punch them in the nose or let it roll off your back. Pick one and do it, please.
I don't know Lubow. I generally agree with what Kelly said in the first place and have an idea of where he's coming from. I don't know Temple. Prejudice stems from lumping and generalizing.
Let's see what happens in the second half.....
Insensitive, but oddly appropriate.
Being sardonic has become far too great of a lifestyle in this theatre community (I know this blog is bigger, but there is a focal crowd)... and perhaps our generation. It's almost a crime to be sensitive or genuine. It provides you with great tools to bash Temple into the ground without even being able to see straight. ...and be snarky at theatre parties and bars. Weren't we the nerds and outcasts that said we'd never be like that? What the hell went wrong...?
No, it's not a crime to be sensitive or genuine. But if you're sensitive to a fault and genuinely an idiot, people will bludgeon you with whatever rhetorical tools they find most amusing. Well, at least they might if you launch into self-righteous harangues clouded with accusations of misogyny, cruelty, stupidity, and myopia. I tease because I have absolutely no need to seriously defend myself or my posts. As for being part of the "theatre community", I never viewed myself as a kind of separatist. Instead, I've always nursed a craven and disgraceful desire to be accepted by the masses. I want to be liked…and occasionally fellated. No, I never will be; and that's punishment enough for my failings I think.
Post a Comment
<< Home