Two stories, both from this week, both illustrating how far we need to go in terms of the general public acknowledging that developmentally disabled adults out in public are, like, a thing:
Friday I went rock climbing. The facility has started charging an obscene amount for equipment rental, so my friend and I hit the discount outdoor supply (yeah, this city is so awesome that we have one of those). The guys in the climbing section were awesome-they even found a harness to fit me (I'm in a weird 'tweener size range). They were great, especially given that it was towards closing time on Friday and they were suddenly confronted with several people who all had drastically different needs.
So anyway, even though I was dropping a substantial chunk of change, I was pretty pleased. Then we go to check out & the chick at the register calls her machine r*tarded. Really? Really?! I could feel my climbing buddy wince from 10 feet away.
Don't use that word. It's ableist and unacceptable and hurtful. Oh! but it doesn't mean that! she says. It means slowed down and the meaning has changed and she grew up with foster kids and "worked with those people" and endless stream of justification.
Yeah, no, lady. And developmentally disabled people may be dropping $120 in your store right now and may be very much reconsidering that choice. The correct protocol is to apologize and STFU. And if you call me hun again I am going to slap your face off. The only thing that kept me from walking out was the knowledge that the shoes alone usually run around $200.
Then there was Sunday. As I've blogged about before, I swing dance. I have made some very good friends dancing, and it partially fills a gymnastics-shaped hole in my life. Anyway...
This very nice guy who's been dancing forever brought his nephew or cousin or something (younger male relative, in his earlyish 20s I'd guess). The kid kind of rubs me the wrong way, but whatever, right? There are lots of decent people with whom I just don't mesh, personality-wise. So this dude comes out to Denny's with us after the dance. We played this ridiculous game, Quelf the Card Game-as opposed to Quelf the board game-which involves doing silly, silly things.
Dudeguy pulls a card and says "I won't do this. It's r*t*rd*d." Don't say that word. It's bigoted. "Can I say 't*rd*d?" Well, not if you don't want me to think you're a bigot. Don't spew that hate in front of me.
Insert his not knowing what ableism is here (it's like sexism or racism, except against people with disabilities!). Insert "but I didn't know anyone here is disabled" as a justification here (because it's totes OK if no one is there to be offended, amirite?). Yeah, dude, I'm autistileptic. Nope, your claim of "borderline autism" doesn't impress me-you're still 100% ableist asshat and there's nothing that will justify that.
The guy asked if I'd be offended if he carved "fuck your god" into his arm. Non sequitur much? At this point other people are telling him to just stop, and one friend pointed out that I'm an atheist, if he was going for shock value with that one. I really don't care, it's his arm, though I do wonder what the purpose of doing that would be.
Then we get more word vomit of the R word & "well I don't know what other word to use!" Um. Bullshit. There are lots of other words and after you call me an fing r I have no reason to educate you-you are not worth my time after that. The guy just won't stop with the offensive and my friend tells him he is no longer welcome at our table-I was ready to leave at that point, but apparently I wasn't the one being an asshat?
This guy then goes around with the card that he insists playing would make him look like...well, that word (as though there is no worse fate than the late night crowd at Denny's wondering about you!) and he asks the waiter and all the stoners and other assorted riffraff that frequent Denny's at 1 AM for an adjective that describes the action on the card (please note that I absolutely without reservation consider my group part of that riffraff as well).
He. Asked. The. Waiter. To. Justify. His. Ableist. Hate. Speech.
The waiter was having none of it, fortunately, so this guy just stood at the side of our table for an hour while everyone ignored him. And on his way out he made sure to be vaguely threatening while using the same word about 10 times in one sentence.
But still. Hate speech. He fought that hard for his "right" to use hate speech.
My friends are awesome and wonderful, I must point out. There are so many similar situations where being not-ok with that word is somehow embarrassing or something, and they were pretty solidly "just stop, dude", which is just a symptom of their amazingness.
But this isn't the kind of thing that should happen at all.
In both these situations, people felt they were entitled to use words that the communities they are used against have explicitly said they disapprove of. And then when I, a member of said group, said "that isn't cool" (and according to witnesses, in the kind of way that isn't even offensive, since argument from tone is so damn popular), they felt they had a right to argue their right to use That Word, even though they'd never dream of using similar slurs, because they somehow have the right.
No.
It is not ok to use my people-yep, we're all stuck with each other-as your insult. And you sure as hell have no right to try to argue that because you know a disabled person or don't know that someone is a disabled person it's ok. Your bullshit, it is not flying here.
Showing posts with label social justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social justice. Show all posts
Monday, October 24, 2011
Friday, October 14, 2011
"Just be NIIIICE": Argument from tone is BS
Let's say you're talking about social justice with someone of an oppressed class (and, for sake of argument, in that particular arena you have privilege). They're saying things you don't want to hear, uncomfortable things that hurt your feelings or make you feel bad. And let's say this person is saying what they mean, rather than sugarcoating it or apologizing.
You turn to the guaranteed conversation stopper: Argument from Tone. "You don't have to say it that way!"
Yes. Yes I do.
It's incredibly arrogant to dictate to someone how they say say things. Most of what gets brought up in these sort of discussions is difficult, it's real and it is raw. And we get told by privileged people all the time that what we have to say does not count because we are not them.
In autism discussions, this already huge problem is worse. Not only is it privilege abuse, but to tell people who are often neurologically incapable of tact and sugar coating that they have to say something 'nicely' or you won't listen to them, that is why it's so obvious that many allistic people want disabled children to talk and disabled adults to shut up.
It is utter ableist crap to say "talk like an allistic, and then we might listen to you." See, we can't talk like allistics. We have a disability that involves social and language differences! Can no one see the problem with demanding that people who tend to have language problems and social differences carefully phrase their language (which can be a battle to put together in the first place) with feelings in mind more than content?
Tone doesn't change what people are saying or why they are saying it. Those extra words, that padding, isn't going to change truth, it's just going to make privileged people feel less guilty. It isn't always about the comfort of privileged people, and it's never about feelings.
If someone is engaging with you about these issues, they probably think you have potential. Then if you pull argument from tone (by the way, it only seems to run one way. If I tell you that what you do is hurtful, no one gives 2 shits), well, there's more of our time wasted. And if you are going to insist it's my responsibility to educate you about autistic culture, don't fucking dare bringing my 'tone' into it.
In fact, just leave tone out of it altogether. Listen for content, not warm fuzzies.
You turn to the guaranteed conversation stopper: Argument from Tone. "You don't have to say it that way!"
Yes. Yes I do.
It's incredibly arrogant to dictate to someone how they say say things. Most of what gets brought up in these sort of discussions is difficult, it's real and it is raw. And we get told by privileged people all the time that what we have to say does not count because we are not them.
In autism discussions, this already huge problem is worse. Not only is it privilege abuse, but to tell people who are often neurologically incapable of tact and sugar coating that they have to say something 'nicely' or you won't listen to them, that is why it's so obvious that many allistic people want disabled children to talk and disabled adults to shut up.
It is utter ableist crap to say "talk like an allistic, and then we might listen to you." See, we can't talk like allistics. We have a disability that involves social and language differences! Can no one see the problem with demanding that people who tend to have language problems and social differences carefully phrase their language (which can be a battle to put together in the first place) with feelings in mind more than content?
Tone doesn't change what people are saying or why they are saying it. Those extra words, that padding, isn't going to change truth, it's just going to make privileged people feel less guilty. It isn't always about the comfort of privileged people, and it's never about feelings.
If someone is engaging with you about these issues, they probably think you have potential. Then if you pull argument from tone (by the way, it only seems to run one way. If I tell you that what you do is hurtful, no one gives 2 shits), well, there's more of our time wasted. And if you are going to insist it's my responsibility to educate you about autistic culture, don't fucking dare bringing my 'tone' into it.
In fact, just leave tone out of it altogether. Listen for content, not warm fuzzies.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Geek Girl Con Reflections: The good, the bad, the WTF
I went to Geek Girl Con this weekend, and it was all sorts of amazing. It was a creep free con, which pretty much doesn't happen, and most of the panels were actually relevant to my life as a geeky, social-justicey woman. It was pretty freaking fabulous.
As I continue to review, keep in mind that we fans are toughest on the things we love. Think of it as having high expectations-I expect the world of things and people who should be able to achieve that.
Let's start with the good (mostly. I get kind of tangental):
-CREEP FREE WEEKEND. Thank you, that is all that needs saying, except it isn't. At other cons I'm afraid to cosplay, what with objectification and the sheer creepness of people who are threatened by a nerd girl or whatever their issue is. I didn't feel objectified or leered at even a little. Awesome.
-Oh my gosh, I could have spent SO much money in the vendor's hall. If you've never seen Surlyramics, you are missing out. There was so much geekery I couldn't entirely handle it.
-It was more diverse racially than pretty much every con I've ever been to. It was still predominantly white, but there were a lot of women (and men, for that matter) of color there, which I find extremely cool.
-Speaking of Teh Menz, there were way more than I expected. That's kind of awesome, because it means that there are, in fact, men who are interested in going to a con that explores a lot of feminist themes.
-HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE AS EXPLAINED BY WONDERWOMAN. THANK YOU, THAT IS ALL.
-The Women in Science and the Skepchick panels were made of amazing. Oh my gosh, I am such a freaking fangirl. Bitch Magazine had a few people there too, so...well, I'm a fangirl, I guess.
-There were so many families there with their kids. And this is really very cool-it's fantastic for the little geeklets to meet each other (and they were oh so cute-all these little kids in costumes, including a Dr Horrible who couldn't have been more than 7). It was also really rad that GGC made a decided effort to be accessible to parents.
-Speaking of kids, an elementary school student asked how to start getting into science now. Right on! And a young girl-I'd estimate age 8-10ish-corrected an adult on the Women of Harry Potter panel about Professor McGonnagal standing up FOR, not AGAINST, Professor Snape. Yeah, that's right, be certain in your knowledge. It's important for kids to challenge adults, I think.
The Bad:
-I got lost repeatedly. There wasn't enough signage for those of us who are directionally impaired.
-I bought a pair of kitty ears from a vendor. They fell apart before I ever got home. I am disappoint. They were super cute, but clearly the antithesis of, y'know, actually functional, even as a decoration.
-As a woman with a disability, I felt pretty damn under-represented on panels and such. If any of the panelists were neurodivergent, they passed pretty well. If there were presenters with any disabilities at all, I didn't see or hear of it. There were probably other under-representation issues as well.
-Some views expressed by a couple panelists were...problematic. This isn't GGC's fault even a little, but I was still kind of shocked to hear a panelist say "well, that's normal and a happy ending and Harry needed a happy ending" when a woman asked what the panel thought about the extraordinarily heterosexist and family makin' ending of the HP series. Also on that panel, stating that "no one deserves that, but if anyone does, it's [Umbridge}" when someone asked how the panel felt about Umbridge being thrown to the centaurs. Yeah, that one almost fell under WTF. Another one actually does.
The WTF:
-I was in the bathroom and a woman who used a wheel chair told off someone who was using the chair-accomodating stall as a changing booth. That's right, make sure she knows. That's awesome. Less awesome? Brain-breakingly awesome? Said chair user had strobey shit on her wheels. Um. Uh. What?
-The Big Problem that nearly ruined Saturday for me: Geek Girls in Popular Culture panel. I was so excited about this panel. It consisted of 4 women and one man, Javier Grillo-Marxuach. Apparently he's done a lot of important work on Lost and The Middleman and Charmed and other shows I've never watched. Whatever. I don't care.
What I care about is that in an unfortunately not-shocking display of privilege abuse and cluelessness, this guy totally dominated a panel about geek girl characters at a con that was supposed to be woman-centric. Fun Fact: INDIANA JONES IS NOT A GEEK GIRL. HE CANNOT BE YOUR FAVORITE GEEK GIRL CHARACTER. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. If you're going to dominate the damn conversation and talk over the female panelists (including 2 who seemed quite introverted) at least listen to and answer the actual question. Talking about your work on whatever and bringing it back to teh menz is not, in fact, feminist. Even if you can use the word "problematic" correctly in a social justice context, you can, in fact, still be problematic! A transcript color coded to see who said how much on that panel would be interesting, I think.
Overall I freaking loved Geek Girl Con. I will be back. I expect that as GGC grows, it will get better in addition to bigger. I can't wait to see what next year brings.
As I continue to review, keep in mind that we fans are toughest on the things we love. Think of it as having high expectations-I expect the world of things and people who should be able to achieve that.
Let's start with the good (mostly. I get kind of tangental):
-CREEP FREE WEEKEND. Thank you, that is all that needs saying, except it isn't. At other cons I'm afraid to cosplay, what with objectification and the sheer creepness of people who are threatened by a nerd girl or whatever their issue is. I didn't feel objectified or leered at even a little. Awesome.
-Oh my gosh, I could have spent SO much money in the vendor's hall. If you've never seen Surlyramics, you are missing out. There was so much geekery I couldn't entirely handle it.
-It was more diverse racially than pretty much every con I've ever been to. It was still predominantly white, but there were a lot of women (and men, for that matter) of color there, which I find extremely cool.
-Speaking of Teh Menz, there were way more than I expected. That's kind of awesome, because it means that there are, in fact, men who are interested in going to a con that explores a lot of feminist themes.
-HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE AS EXPLAINED BY WONDERWOMAN. THANK YOU, THAT IS ALL.
-The Women in Science and the Skepchick panels were made of amazing. Oh my gosh, I am such a freaking fangirl. Bitch Magazine had a few people there too, so...well, I'm a fangirl, I guess.
-There were so many families there with their kids. And this is really very cool-it's fantastic for the little geeklets to meet each other (and they were oh so cute-all these little kids in costumes, including a Dr Horrible who couldn't have been more than 7). It was also really rad that GGC made a decided effort to be accessible to parents.
-Speaking of kids, an elementary school student asked how to start getting into science now. Right on! And a young girl-I'd estimate age 8-10ish-corrected an adult on the Women of Harry Potter panel about Professor McGonnagal standing up FOR, not AGAINST, Professor Snape. Yeah, that's right, be certain in your knowledge. It's important for kids to challenge adults, I think.
The Bad:
-I got lost repeatedly. There wasn't enough signage for those of us who are directionally impaired.
-I bought a pair of kitty ears from a vendor. They fell apart before I ever got home. I am disappoint. They were super cute, but clearly the antithesis of, y'know, actually functional, even as a decoration.
-As a woman with a disability, I felt pretty damn under-represented on panels and such. If any of the panelists were neurodivergent, they passed pretty well. If there were presenters with any disabilities at all, I didn't see or hear of it. There were probably other under-representation issues as well.
-Some views expressed by a couple panelists were...problematic. This isn't GGC's fault even a little, but I was still kind of shocked to hear a panelist say "well, that's normal and a happy ending and Harry needed a happy ending" when a woman asked what the panel thought about the extraordinarily heterosexist and family makin' ending of the HP series. Also on that panel, stating that "no one deserves that, but if anyone does, it's [Umbridge}" when someone asked how the panel felt about Umbridge being thrown to the centaurs. Yeah, that one almost fell under WTF. Another one actually does.
The WTF:
-I was in the bathroom and a woman who used a wheel chair told off someone who was using the chair-accomodating stall as a changing booth. That's right, make sure she knows. That's awesome. Less awesome? Brain-breakingly awesome? Said chair user had strobey shit on her wheels. Um. Uh. What?
-The Big Problem that nearly ruined Saturday for me: Geek Girls in Popular Culture panel. I was so excited about this panel. It consisted of 4 women and one man, Javier Grillo-Marxuach. Apparently he's done a lot of important work on Lost and The Middleman and Charmed and other shows I've never watched. Whatever. I don't care.
What I care about is that in an unfortunately not-shocking display of privilege abuse and cluelessness, this guy totally dominated a panel about geek girl characters at a con that was supposed to be woman-centric. Fun Fact: INDIANA JONES IS NOT A GEEK GIRL. HE CANNOT BE YOUR FAVORITE GEEK GIRL CHARACTER. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. If you're going to dominate the damn conversation and talk over the female panelists (including 2 who seemed quite introverted) at least listen to and answer the actual question. Talking about your work on whatever and bringing it back to teh menz is not, in fact, feminist. Even if you can use the word "problematic" correctly in a social justice context, you can, in fact, still be problematic! A transcript color coded to see who said how much on that panel would be interesting, I think.
Overall I freaking loved Geek Girl Con. I will be back. I expect that as GGC grows, it will get better in addition to bigger. I can't wait to see what next year brings.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Body policing & erasure & such
-Yes, I realize I have some thin privilege. That doesn't stop what specifically I am writing about from bothering me.-
There's no good way for me to start this. So I'm just going to start throwing words out there and it'll sort of maybe make sense.
One of the big slogans, for lack of a better word, that I've heard a lot of in reaction to the predominant unrealistic female body type seen in the media is "real women have curves!".
By that measure, I am not a real woman. That measure excludes many many women. Many athletic women aren't particularly curvy. Many trans women aren't particularly curvy. A lot of women of all sizes are, in fact, not particularly curvy. It's body policing to exclude even one of these groups of women from the category "real women". Those skinny models who it's fun to hate on? ALSO WOMEN.
This is something that has bothered me for a while, because, well, I am a woman and I have no curves. I wasn't going to say anything about it until a website that seeks to have photos of women of "all" body types came to my attention.
"All" body types includes:
-banana (straight up and down, shoulders and hips and waist all pretty much the same width).
-pear (wider hips than shoulders)
-apple (widest in the middle)
-hourglass (I'm gunna go on a limb and assume you know what that is)
According to their classification of "all" female body types, I don't have one. I'm much wider at the shoulders than the hips, & pretty much straight up and down from the armpits on down. There's no cute fruit name assigned to that. I know quite a few grown women who are shaped like me, and a lot of growing young women who are going to be shaped like me. As a teenager and young adult, some of the adults in my life joked that I was built like a very tiny man, but I was under the impression they were kidding.
So there's a whole visceral "well that sucks, yet another way women who happen to be me don't exist". But there's also the whole thing where body acceptance isn't a zero-sum game. Or shouldn't be.
We shouldn't police women for having the "wrong" shape or size in any direction. I wouldn't dream of saying something hateful about someone larger or rounder than me, but when in the name of empowerment someone (a real someone, not a strawwoman) yells at me to eat a fucking cheeseburger or calls me anorexic or pinches me somewhere not soft (pretty much anywhere) and proclaims that real women have curves...well, I don't see how that's empowering. Disempowering someone else isn't how empowerment works.
(and that isn't even getting into how being a disabled woman intersects with this, or how accusing someone of anorexia maliciously is ableist bullshit, or a lot of other things).
There's no good way for me to start this. So I'm just going to start throwing words out there and it'll sort of maybe make sense.
One of the big slogans, for lack of a better word, that I've heard a lot of in reaction to the predominant unrealistic female body type seen in the media is "real women have curves!".
By that measure, I am not a real woman. That measure excludes many many women. Many athletic women aren't particularly curvy. Many trans women aren't particularly curvy. A lot of women of all sizes are, in fact, not particularly curvy. It's body policing to exclude even one of these groups of women from the category "real women". Those skinny models who it's fun to hate on? ALSO WOMEN.
This is something that has bothered me for a while, because, well, I am a woman and I have no curves. I wasn't going to say anything about it until a website that seeks to have photos of women of "all" body types came to my attention.
"All" body types includes:
-banana (straight up and down, shoulders and hips and waist all pretty much the same width).
-pear (wider hips than shoulders)
-apple (widest in the middle)
-hourglass (I'm gunna go on a limb and assume you know what that is)
According to their classification of "all" female body types, I don't have one. I'm much wider at the shoulders than the hips, & pretty much straight up and down from the armpits on down. There's no cute fruit name assigned to that. I know quite a few grown women who are shaped like me, and a lot of growing young women who are going to be shaped like me. As a teenager and young adult, some of the adults in my life joked that I was built like a very tiny man, but I was under the impression they were kidding.
So there's a whole visceral "well that sucks, yet another way women who happen to be me don't exist". But there's also the whole thing where body acceptance isn't a zero-sum game. Or shouldn't be.
We shouldn't police women for having the "wrong" shape or size in any direction. I wouldn't dream of saying something hateful about someone larger or rounder than me, but when in the name of empowerment someone (a real someone, not a strawwoman) yells at me to eat a fucking cheeseburger or calls me anorexic or pinches me somewhere not soft (pretty much anywhere) and proclaims that real women have curves...well, I don't see how that's empowering. Disempowering someone else isn't how empowerment works.
(and that isn't even getting into how being a disabled woman intersects with this, or how accusing someone of anorexia maliciously is ableist bullshit, or a lot of other things).
Monday, May 16, 2011
YAY ACTIVISM AND STUFF.
I attend the walks for choice that started as a response to the right wing war on women. It's really really easy to be in support of free birth control, free STD testing,accessible abortion, and other reproductive health care in the liberal city I call home. We've never been counterdemonstrated (which would be hilarious, but I'm kind of strange..) and we've had exactly one invective yelled at us. People here are overwhelmingly in support of keeping Planned Parenthood funded, keeping abortion legal, making sure that the definition of rape doesn't get so stringent that most women aren't able to deal with the already stressful reporting process, basic stuff like that. They may not be willing to walk through town chanting about free testing for everyone, but they're all for it on the inside.
The thing is, though, that there are big intersectionality issues with anything feminist. Women are not all the same. There are women of all races, women of all sizes, cis women, trans women, rich women, poor women, neuroprivileged women, neurodivergent women, women with visible disabilities, women with no discernible disability.
That is a LOT of diversity to cover. And while I doubt we have it perfect, the organizers are doing their damnedest. And I approve. Many feminist kind of things, even those that try to be inclusive, engage in some kind of erasure, be it that of trans women, or of women of color, or mothers, or disabled women.
I'm sure there's a group no one thought of yet in our area because of the privilege that comes with not being in any given minority, but I don't know who that is, and that's kind of cool. I dread so much feminist activism because of the erasure, and I am not erased. I may be the only disabled person there (more likely I am not), but the existence of people like me, and the fact that people like me also need sexual health services, is acknowledged.
They even asked me to talk about the ableism that occurs in reproductive health services. That's kind of cool. So many people think that autistic people, disabled people, are asexual perpetual children, that my experiences being acknowledged by a mainstream feminist movement makes me warm and fuzzy inside.
Inclusiveness: because all of us matter. Go (my town's) walk for choice!
(yes I realize some people reading aren't pro choice. Some may even be anti contraception, which is a mindset that makes no sense to me for reasons I assume are obvious. I'd rather not have a bigass OMG BABYKILLER argument here, since the main idea of the post is YAY NOT BEING ERASED AND YAY EMBRACING DIVERSITY, not YAY ABORTIONS).
The thing is, though, that there are big intersectionality issues with anything feminist. Women are not all the same. There are women of all races, women of all sizes, cis women, trans women, rich women, poor women, neuroprivileged women, neurodivergent women, women with visible disabilities, women with no discernible disability.
That is a LOT of diversity to cover. And while I doubt we have it perfect, the organizers are doing their damnedest. And I approve. Many feminist kind of things, even those that try to be inclusive, engage in some kind of erasure, be it that of trans women, or of women of color, or mothers, or disabled women.
I'm sure there's a group no one thought of yet in our area because of the privilege that comes with not being in any given minority, but I don't know who that is, and that's kind of cool. I dread so much feminist activism because of the erasure, and I am not erased. I may be the only disabled person there (more likely I am not), but the existence of people like me, and the fact that people like me also need sexual health services, is acknowledged.
They even asked me to talk about the ableism that occurs in reproductive health services. That's kind of cool. So many people think that autistic people, disabled people, are asexual perpetual children, that my experiences being acknowledged by a mainstream feminist movement makes me warm and fuzzy inside.
Inclusiveness: because all of us matter. Go (my town's) walk for choice!
(yes I realize some people reading aren't pro choice. Some may even be anti contraception, which is a mindset that makes no sense to me for reasons I assume are obvious. I'd rather not have a bigass OMG BABYKILLER argument here, since the main idea of the post is YAY NOT BEING ERASED AND YAY EMBRACING DIVERSITY, not YAY ABORTIONS).
Friday, May 6, 2011
Tumblr People:
I am thrilled and delighted that you are reblogging my stuff. Yay me yay you.
HOWEVER
When you comment on my writing, the only way for me to see it is to chase you all over the internets. This is inane. My stuff is getting like a billion comments on tumblr (other people's tumblrs, I don't have the bandwidth to have yet another blog) and here it gets very very few.
This bothers me. I like comments. I like conversation. It's all happening about me, without me. Not cool. And I shouldn't have to chase all over the intertrons to see what people think (and blogger doesn't do the linkbacks with tumblr so I wouldn't really know where to start even if I wanted to and had the time to).
Commenting here isn't hard, I promise. And I like seeing what other people have to say.
HOWEVER
When you comment on my writing, the only way for me to see it is to chase you all over the internets. This is inane. My stuff is getting like a billion comments on tumblr (other people's tumblrs, I don't have the bandwidth to have yet another blog) and here it gets very very few.
This bothers me. I like comments. I like conversation. It's all happening about me, without me. Not cool. And I shouldn't have to chase all over the intertrons to see what people think (and blogger doesn't do the linkbacks with tumblr so I wouldn't really know where to start even if I wanted to and had the time to).
Commenting here isn't hard, I promise. And I like seeing what other people have to say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)