Dear Tom,
This is completely uncalled-for and disrespectful bullshit:
Remarkably, one can find, for example, a blogger who emphasizes being pro-choice on abortion declaring she sees no difference between McWherter, who is pro-choice, and Haslam, who is pro-life – although neither candidate is zealous about espousing his position. She was upset that McWherter had shown some sympathy for people opposing construction of a mosque in Murfreesboro.
Who? Who is this “remarkable” blogger? How would this remarkable blogger defend herself against you if you won’t name her? I could say I think it’s me, get all pissed off at what total bullshit is is for you to not have the courage to name me, and then you could be all “Oh, I meant… um… Southern Beale.” Or Beale could be all “Well, no, you have misrepresented my feelings on the matter,” and you can say, “Oh, no, not you, I meant… um… some blogger you guys don’t know.”
And then you put this in your column? Again, without naming this person you’re taking to task?
It’s not cool to make an actual person in this state your bogeyman, especially without identifying her so that she can respond.
Shape up.
And, in the future, you need to get over this idea that women are one-issue voters and that, if you know a woman is pro-choice, that she’s somehow “remarkable” if that’s not the only factor that influences her political decisions.
You know voters are more complicated than that. Write like it.
Annoyed,
Aunt B.
Edited to add: I’m glad to see that nonsense didn’t make it into the print version.
Filed under: Blogging & Bloggers, Open Letters to Folks Who Need Them, Politics and Other Nonsense, The State of Tennessee
Also, if he doesn’t name anybody specific, he and readers can pretend it’s just one blogger who feels uninspired by McWherter, rather than you, me, Beale, and probably plenty of others.
Dear Aunt B.,
As you note, the referenced paragraph was edited out of the column as run in the NS. When I posted the original version on the blog, I inadvertently neglected to provide a link. It’s there now, thanks to you pointing out my oversight.
http://womenshealthnews.wordpress.com/2010/08/29/an-election-update-pro-choice-candidates-can-almost-win-in-tennessee/
I intended no attack on the blogger, who has an honest and understandable viewpoint, much less trying to make the lady a bogeyman — only to give an example of the phenomena of disillusioned Democrats. In hindsight, given your reaction and the editor’s deletion of the paragraph (likely for space reasons and because it was only tangentially related to the overall column), it should have been omitted entirely and left for another day as a separate topic.
I will try to do better.
And if you ever decide to apply for a job as an editor, you can use me as a reference – if you think that would help.
Best regards,
Tom
Tom, thanks for writing and for clarifying. As for taking on Rachel, of all the female bloggers in Tennessee, good luck with that. I hear she can put a man in the hospital with nothing more than a library book.
Anyway, I look forward to you writing about the disgruntledness of some strains of Democrats in the state. Just remember that not all of us look at a politician and say, “What’s in it for me?” but “How’s he going to do by all the people I care about?”
As for your reference, I will keep it in my back pocket should I ever decide to leap from one dying industry to another.
Best,
Betsy
Tom, that lady is me, so thanks for clarifying. As B noted above, women are not single-issue voters. Yes, I’m pro-choice, and McWherter may be nominally pro-choice. However, I’ve not been properly convinced of how this would play out were he elected, nor am I convinced that someone who would not stand up for justice wrt religious freedom would stand up for what I consider to be justice wrt reproductive freedom, nor do I think a nominally pro-choice stance can necessarily erase the problems of other positions and statements. “Disillusioned Democrat” is an apt descriptor, however, because I remain unconvinced that McWherter is Democratic/progressive/liberal/whatever enough to suit my tastes.
[...] 9/5/10: There was some business about this post here and here, when a Knoxville News-Sentinel columnist included this bit in his piece: Remarkably, one can find, [...]
Also, I think more of my posts should be linked from columns that heavily feature Lord of the Rings.
Well, what Rachel says, of course. But I’d also point out that for at least a decade now, and closer to a generation, the Democratic Party as a whole (with individual exceptions, of course) has used reproductive choice as its gag to shut women up about any other concerns that affect us. Equal pay? Harassment or discrimination in the workplace? Childcare? Health care? Shut up, at least we support Roe v. Wade. The Democrats act as if they don’t need to pay any attention to women because of course we’re not going to go anywhere else, because they support Roe v. Wade but the Republicans don’t. And, in the meantime, they aren’t supporting Roe v. Wade at all. They’re actually allowing all sorts of reproductive issues to be reframed in ways that harm women, letting rights be reduced or hedged around so thoroughly that they might as well not exist. And maybe we’re just a tad tired of being told to sit down and take whatever they dish out, because Roe v. Wade.