Subject: Good to know.
Author:
Posted on: 2017-03-10 02:42:00 UTC
Women's strikes have been happening for years, without her involvement. Remind me how this is at all relevant when the protest has nothing to do with her history?
It's Women's Day. And since you are a big part of this community, each of you is irreplaceable, and I love every single one of you for bringing something new and something cool to our big, crazy family... here's a virtual tulip (which is a sorta traditional flower of the holiday in Poland) for every lovely lady, everyone who identifies as such, and everyone in-between who doesn't want to be bound by gender shackles (expect us, gentlemen. We wait for November 19th!)
So... here's a flower and the most sincere wishes of well-being to you:
Iximaz,
Scapegrace,
Cat-on-the-Keyboard,
Silenthunder,
Khryssty,
eatpraylove,
Zingenmir,
The Triumvirate,
Alleb,
VixenMage,
Neshomeh,
Badger421,
S.M.F.,
Tira,
Delta Juliette,
JulyFlame,
KoolKoopaGirl...
and everyone else my stupid brain is forgetting at this very moment (because I'm sure there are more of you)!
With best wishes and love, on the behalf of the PPC male community,
— Matthias "Matt Cipher" Kennel
Sorry I didn't see this until now... Bad me! Bad me!
I can't help but see this as Matt trying to be, as Ix said, friendly and inclusive. It doesn't strike me as a form of intended aggression or an attempt to intimidate.
In fact, I'll admit that all I see Matt trying to do is include most of the women in the PPC. The fact that he tried to list most of them by name is impressive to me, and indicative of someone who just wants to show his appreciation of people who made a difference. In going over his mental list of the organization, he remembered you, and wanted to include you.
I know this probably dredges up a lot of painful memories for you, but maybe take a step back and look at this for what it really seems to be? I.E., someone who feels bad that they drove away a friend and is trying to make some small measure of reparation in the form of kindness?
Maybe you should've bothered to read the archives first before commenting. Your comment sounds like needless dogpiling to me, esp. since you have no idea what went over and why July has this reaction to this obviously small and non-aggressive deed of Matt.
And everything I saw supported my model of events, which don't need to be discussed here for the sake of all involved.
I only mentioned that I wasn't around for it to acknowledge anyone who might try and use that to say that I have no idea what I'm talking about and dispel the counterargument before it even started, just to save time and Board space. This was apparently a less than good idea.
I don't see the purpose of responding as she did here, because this wasn't about her. If someone I had that kind of history with mentioned my name in a list of male members of an organization, I wouldn't really feel prodded to respond if I really wanted nothing to do with them.
As for the dogpiling, this just happened to be something that I felt was an unnecessary attack on a friend of mine, so my opinion should be voiced, regardless of how many other people were doing it.
So, er, first off, I figure, we ought to not dogpile. Um. I feel like dogpiling is probably not a good idea, and we've done that a couple times, so, how about not dogpiling. Let's not go and do that.
And second off, was this post really necessary?
You have grievances (I apologise if this sounds like I'm reducing your situation or mocking you or any some such,) and such, fine. You don't have to like people, especially if something or other that was largely out of your control has gone down between you and said people.
But did they really need to get dragged out, here? Understand that what you have done here, is you have changed the entire subject from celebrating women in the PPC, to a personal drama between you and Matt. It's not constructive or helpful or fun and, frankly, it's a very good way to turn something totally innocent (like, say, a post celebrating women,) into something very much not innocent (like, say, a virtual slugfest,) for reasons which are esoteric at best. I mean, really, the central possible conclusion I can see coming from this post is some sort of argument.
It's unnecessary, is what it is. It helps nobody, certainly not you.
I'm all about being friendly and inclusive, but if July has told Matt multiple times not to talk to her, adding her name to a list* in the one space she can't block him from is at the very least a micro aggression, and more than that it's a nice little reminder that she can't block him here.
Saying "by the way, this person harassed me and I perceive this post as a continuation of that behavior" is not causing trouble. Harassing someone is.
*btw, which my name also shouldn't be on, as I am very much not a woman
I'll admit, I had not given too much consideration to the whole micro-aggression thing, and I do apologise for that. I'll also admit that I, personally, don't think that listing July's name in a general, nonspecific list of women ought to be cause for alarm, but then again, harassment's not defined by me, and if July feels harassed by that, then. Well. It's harassment, innit? Or insensitive, anyhow. At least, it's got to be treated like that. So, yes, fair enough.
And I am aware that harassment is causing trouble and is a Bad Thing, I simply don't regard Matt Cipher's current actions as harassment, and I really don't think it's fair to consider them as such. I am not taking, to any large extent, his previous actions into account, and I am not attempting to compare what July is doing to what Matt has done. I don't think comparing what they've done is helpful, either. But, er, do correct me if that is absolute rubbish, on that case.
I still ultimately think that July's post could have been more mature, constructive, et al. You've posted an interpretation, but that's it - an interpretation of a million things she may have said. Assuming your interpretation is totally correct, she could have certainly phrased it in a more mature manner.
It simply doesn't strike me as entirely fair - Matt is posting something that is (supposed to be, anyhow) innocent, largely unrelated and separated from July at all (other than her name, which, as mentioned, was a woman's name on a list of women, emphasis on the woman over July,) and July's response is so very accusatory. Again - even if what he did do was cause for alarm, stepping on old wounds, insensitive, et al, I don't think she responded correctly, at all. I understand it's a sensitive area, and maybe it was an impulse action, but she still has to be held to the same standards of etiquette and such as everyone else!
Ahem. Anyhow, I do feel like I'm not nearly as well involved/researched in this entire situation as a responder ought to be, and I do feel like my first response (while I do somewhat stick to it) was far, far too impulsive. Pardon for that. I shall drop out of this once possible - I'd hate to be the cause of a big argument, especially if the argument involves two people, neither of whom seem to want to be involved in the argument at all. And I do apologise for all the impulsiveness and whatnot. I could have probably handled that a whole lot better!
Yes, I was made aware of that after the fact. I have no explanation as to why I was certain you were a woman. It wasn't the username, that's what I'm sure of. Regardless, I would like to apologize for that.
July had to block Matt on Discord, Hangouts and other such things after he didn't stop talking to her despite being told not to, so I can understand why she's upset; and frankly there's no good way of saying "don't talk to me ever". I think that being snarky about this is uncalled for.
*SNIFFFFF*
Beautiful.
In all seriousness, though, I love flowers, and I love light colors. You did well, Matt. *hug*
But I'm glad you did. *hugs* *takes flower*
There's also a protest going on today in which women who are able are staying home from work, to demonstrate just how much the world would miss us if we weren't there. Those of us who don't have the option to miss work—such as me, both because I'm not rich and because I work at a small woman-owned business where we care for lots of women—are wearing red in support.
~Neshomeh, dashing out the door right now, in fact.
Especially since one of its organisers is a convicted terrorist who helped murder two people and wound nine.
I got it through the women at my job, who are all very nice and non-terroristic people. And my boss probably got it through the organization of women business owners in the town where I work, and I'm pretty sure the worst thing they did was fill a local restaurant and take pictures.
Anyway, it's too late, I already wore the shirt. Which I've owned for years. So... *shrug*
~Neshomeh
Women's strikes have been happening for years, without her involvement. Remind me how this is at all relevant when the protest has nothing to do with her history?
1) I did say "this particular protest" and not "women's protests in general".
2) If an organisation keeps an unrepentant convicted terrorist anywhere near itself it loses any sort of moral high ground it has.
1) I know you prefer things to be laid down clearly, as per this post, but in engaging people solely in bullet-point form you can come off as quite unbelievably condescending. And that's leaving aside whether or not I agree with your posts, which, by the way, I really don't. It makes no more sense to tar a global grassroots activist movement with the brush of one Palestinian alleged bomber than it does to, say, tar the entire Royal Air Force with that of the one guy who machinegunned a children's choir during the bombing of Dresden in WWII.
I think that organisations have some sort of collective responsibility; the actions of a member, especially a high-ranking one (inasmuch this protest has a stratified structure) can and should reflect on an organisation as a well. To use your example, the RAF should deal with what that guy who shot a bunch of kids did — it should, IDK, court-martial him — and in our case, this women's protest should denounce Rasmea Odeh as the murderer she is and refuse to work with her.
What role does she actually have in the strike?
I can see a Times of Israel article slamming them for giving her 'a leadership position', which links to HuffPost calling her 'an organizer', which in turn links to womensmarch.com, which doesn't list her on their team. She doesn't appear to be a speaker or honorary co-chair, either.
So... how is she actually involved? I assume she's fairly influential, since it's enough to make you reject the protest in its entirety.
hS
And it seems like both ToI (where I first read the story) and HuffPost jumped the gun; looks those articles threw this into the mix, which lead to the whole pile.
Seems like I was wrong; looks like this is the best summation of events, which shows nothing about Odeh being an organiser of that protest.
I'm also not sure what her involvement in the Guardian article is; writer? Person vaguely associated with it? Her only mention is in the sidebar, which when clicked gives a link to that article and a description of her as 'associate director of the Arab American Action Network and leader of that group's Arab Women's Committee'.
Regardless, and while it may not be my place to say this, I think you probably owe Neshomeh (at least) an apology for attempting to dismiss a protest by tens of thousands of women worldwide - women with legitimate and serious grievances - on the basis of who (you thought) one of the organisers was.
hS
But whatever.
I formally apologise to whomever was offended by what I said.
(I'm a student; nothing would stop working if I wasn't there, I'd just get behind).
My plan was to break out my Starfleet engineering uniform and tape a sign to the back saying "Women Are Not Expendable". . . but I'm sorry to say that I lost my nerve (also, the shirt isn't, strictly speaking, mine).
But yeah. The world needs women. Treat us well.
--Key