Comments on: Is Mike Patronizing Women in a Tokenistic Sort of Way?

By: stephanie louise fisher

stephanie louise fisher — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:59:47 +0000

no, not at all – I often read comments while others often don’t. Same with footnotes.

By: Patrick George McCullough

Patrick George McCullough — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:47:20 +0000

People should totally read the footnotes! But I have updated the original post by including a link to the comments if people are interested in James’ specific post.

As an aside, doesn’t your statement “of course I didn’t miss it!” kind of undermine the argument in the rest of your comment?

By: stephanie louise fisher

stephanie louise fisher — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:19:52 +0000

of course I didn’t miss it! The point is, that as you must know well, people do not always read comments. They’re a bit like a footnotes. If they’re really important they ought to be in the text. Of course Jimmy Dunn would dispute that, but that’s another matter…

By: Patrick George McCullough

Patrick George McCullough — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:57:19 +0000

Thanks for the comment, Steph. I believe this ground has already been covered in my interaction with James in the comments here. Please read my comment above--it seems you may have missed it. Does that help? I wasn't intentionally misrepresenting him, but rather I misunderstood him. I wasn't interested in attacking James, but rather the reaction that I think some were having about the meme in general. I still think it was valid ground to cover even though James wasn't the representation of it that I originally thought he was.

By: stephanie louise fisher

stephanie louise fisher — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:31:42 +0000

I think it’s odd that you link to James’ post which neither directly nor indirectly refers to Mike’s meme. Don’t you think you are misrepresenting him?

By: Patrick George McCullough

Patrick George McCullough — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 00:07:07 +0000

I see your follow-up comment now, James. Thanks for the clarification.

For the benefit of others, this was the original comment in question: “for the love of all things holy, e) avoid the impression that listing favourite women might just be little more than tokenism (Jim West was right to critique this sort of thing).” I neglected to fully recognize the words “avoid the impression” and instead assumed you were agreeing with a few others who had negative reactions to the meme in and of itself (no matter how it’s used). My apologies.

Still, some others may be thinking what I thought you said (if that makes sense), so I’m glad to have the opportunity to bring it up here.

By: Mike Koke

Mike Koke — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 18:59:45 +0000

Thanks Pat for getting what I was trying to do. I apologize if people did take it in a patronizing sort of way, I meant it more as one way to respond to the issue of underrepresentation of women in the blogosphere. That was honestly my only intention behind it.

By: James Crossley

James Crossley — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 18:12:33 +0000

Ah, just for the record (and as I’ve said), I never said Mike K’s meme was not on my mind and I didn’t say it amounts to tokenism. I said that lists shouldn’t be tokenistic. These are, ultimately, two different things.