Don't hate me because I'm cute.
You know, I almost forgot to do a Monday Monty blog today - but then I got this email that reminded me. It's from someone who sent along a story they wanted Feministing to cover, and who wrote said email in such a way that it compelled me to find a super cute picture of the dog. (And no, I won't link to the story. Yes, I'm spiteful.)
Not that you ever print anything I've sent in the past, though it's usually more relevant than updates on Jessica's dog, I'll send this article by [redacted] along. Cheers
Paging PassiveAggressiveNotes.com! Seriously, though. We get hundreds of post ideas a day and we do our best to write about the ones we think Feministing readers will be interested in. So thanks to all of you who continue to take the time to email us story ideas sans snarky commentary about my poor wee dog.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Monday Monty Blogging (passive aggressive edition).
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15996
Wow, someone didn't get their idea posted.. poor baby :(( Like you gals don't cover freaking EVERYTHING as it is. I come here first for feminist news and I LOVE seeing it brightened up with Monty!
So do these passive aggressive bandits not realize that they can post it themselves on the community site?
Exactly. I send lots of links to the editors. Some get posted, some don't. If it's something that I feel is noteworthy enough I write my own post about it.
I believe community posts are moderated as well?
I once wrote a post for the community and it didn't post--I think I did everything right so I've assumed that the editors choose which posts to post.
It just sucks when you spend time writing something you think is relevant--something similar to an article on the main page and it's not deemed relevant.
Of course, this blog is the editors' so a person needs to realize that and if they want 100% control they should write their own blog.
The community posts are moderated just to make sure nothing antifeminist gets through. With the exception of a couple of posts, I can't remember us not publishing folks' content...
Everything I've ever written for the community blog has been posted. And I once wrote a post with some seriously embarrassing typos...
I also had a post once that I thought was perfectly feminist that didn't post. This website is so buggy that its impossible to tell if it went through, and I ended up deciding, like I do with most of my comments that don't go through, that its not worth the effort to type it again.
i don't think they needed to bring adorable ol' Monty into this. i mean, geez, what'd he do?
Well he did steal my heart...
'Cause being a popular blogger means it's okay for you to be spiteful in public, but not okay for someone else -- someone lower -- to be passive agressive in an e-mail.
Waste of my bandwidth and not worthy of Feministing.
I hardly think being a blogger makes me "higher" than anyone. We're all human beings with feelings, and if someone wants to send me a stinging email, then they should expect something in return.
The idea that when people are nasty (and believe me, there are about just as much of the passive aggressive kind as there are hate mails) I should just eat shit and smile is ridiculous.
But, but, but, you're a WOMAN. Of COURSE you're supposed to eat shit and smile. You have no right to express anger! Get back in your place!
While I can't honestly say livinginthefridge expected, I can tell you that I personally didn't expect you to "eat shit and smile." The email you received was rude. No question about it; and they should expect to receive something in return for being so rude.
However I do think that 'fridge has a point when it comes to the original post being a bit spiteful. Chiding someone for being passive aggressive while insulting them publicly does seem a bit slanted to me. I'm all for personal stuff on Feministing, but come on. It seems like a matter that would have been better handled with a personal (rather than public) reply. If the author of the email received a personal reply, then that's great, but why dwell on the matter by publicly shaming them? If they didn't receive a personal reply... well... I guess this post would be a wee bit passive aggressive in and of itself, wouldn't it? Obviously I have no idea if the author of the offending email got a personal reply, but either way, it seems kind of childish to post about it.
That's just my two cents. And just to clarify, I didn't get the impression that you thought of yourself as "higher" for some reason.
I'm just saying, there's something to be said for the old expression:
"An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind".
It's especially true on the internet. The best defense against trolls is not responding to them, and the best way to prevent snark on the internet is not to employ it yourself. Now I'm not saying it's not okay to defend yourself, I'm just saying maybe it would have been kinder to do so in a direct reply via e-mail instead of on the front page.
Btw Monty looks very happy and healthy.
No, being the editor of a blog means that you get to edit the content of that blog.
I was going to write something snarky about the passive-aggressive emailer in question, but Monty's eyes just melted my heart. ♥
Monty has become a beautiful grownup -- he still has it.
More Monty -- please.
I can't blame you. Even if it were the best link/story ever, with that note I'd never post it.
Besides, what could possibly be more important that adorable Monty pictures? I'm saying that without any snark.
I always appreciate the "relevant" and "significant" content on Feministing ... INCLUDING Monty. In fact I wub Monty.
Cactus wren and liza :
Pictures and stories about a dog on a feminist blog is a childish provocation when we know what is the state of women life in our world.
Jessica valenti obviously finds her dumb ego more important than women's rights .
Please get over yourself.
Jill at Feministe posts photos of her cat. She and Jessica are both excellent bloggers who devote a lot of time to covering "the state of women life in our world" as you so aptly phrase it.
Uh, so I visited stéphane's blog out of curiosity and it is... interesting.
One gem: "[Our atheist world is] a world where people have sex and relationships just because it is socially required and valuable."
Well stéphane, I am an atheist who has sex because I like sex. And I'm in a relationship because I like spending time with my boyfriend.
Props for some of your more progressive ideas but let's please avoid generalizations. I respect that you've reconciled your belief in Christianity and your feminist perspectives because I was never able to do that but please show some respect to Jessica and to all us hard working feminist atheists. Also, there are a lot of feminist dog lovers out there and we love Monty.
Mind you , alot of young and less young women are DISEMPOWERED by the social excpectations for sex and relationships , it's a concept that i doubt your bias lets you grasp.
What is my bias exactly? That I care I about my relationship? That I like sex? Or is it that nasty "A" word?
Yes, because my ego is directly related to cute pictures of doggies. How did you know? *rolls eyes*