You know, the kind of thing that happened in the comment thread of this post is one of disappointing things — one of the down sides — of Internet community. Someone leaves a comment, gets questioned about the comment, responds defensively or cryptically or, in this case, both, and later decides he or she is being attacked and disappears into the ether — for good, one assumes.
It frustrates me. A lot. I asked said commenter no less than four times to please elaborate, please explain, I’m trying to understand you, but, no, she wouldn’t ultimately do it. I read and re-read what I said to her and asked myself if I was rude to her. I could have reworded things — I know I could have — but that’s the same ol’ saw for me, something I always beat myself up about. I guess I’m frustrated because, while on the surface of her initial comment there was kind of sympathy, sort of compassion, it seemed like it was mostly extended to those poor cows — actual cows — who can’t have babies.
I myself do not have compassion for childless cows. My compassion on this issue is reserved for humans only, creatures who can feel and understand loss. But maybe that’s just me. I’m heartless that way.
Interlaced into her comment, though, was a kind of creeping prejudice towards the childless-by-choice contingent. Not as blatant, perhaps, as Dennis Rainey’s, but nascent, cut from the same cloth, and it was that which I felt I should question.
I’m not trying to throw this particular commenter under the bus; it’s just the most recent example of commenters who don’t check their tone or who say careless things they’re ultimately not willing to apologize for or defend, as the case may be. I realize it’s hard. It’s hard always to know how we come across because it’s nearly impossible to be objective about ourselves. But perhaps a good clue is if you’re told repeatedly that your comments come across as negative or snarky or gloomy — or whatever — you might want to edit yourself, double-check a comment before you click submit. And if you’re asked, by more than one person, to clarify what you said, perhaps you weren’t clear to begin with or perhaps there’s an idea you left unfinished, something more to explore.
But don’t go running off. I realize it’s the Internet and nothing is easier than running off in a huff or tail between your legs, but that’s unfortunate. To be completely honest, I don’t respect that because behind all the words and comments you see on a blog are REAL flesh-and-blood people. People who, yes, do get hurt and frustrated by words on the screen. People who are left hanging if someone hurls accusations and then disappears. Life is hard enough, isn’t it, without recreating high school in the Internet? Let’s be the adults that we are. Answer questions. Be courteous. Follow through. Engage in civil debate/discussion.
A personal rule of thumb I try to follow: If I wouldn’t say it to a person’s face, I don’t say it on the Internet. It’s a simple rule, but, still, the invisibility and anonymity of the Internet make baser interpersonal instincts so much easier to indulge. We have to fight it and I include myself in that. Obviously.
On another note: If you ever feel offended by something in the comments, something someone else says, honestly, I feel it’s their responsibility to manage that. Fortunately, that very rarely happens. Nonetheless, I don’t take ownership of comments I didn’t make. I have enough problems with my own mouth to worry about monitoring others, so please don’t expect me to apologize for that which I did not say. If comments ever get too ugly — that hasn’t happened so far, to the best of my knowledge — I’ll step in or shut them down or something, but we’re all adults here so I leave self-discipline to the individual selves who participate in this blog.
Life’s hard. Even harder right now for so many.
So let’s be kind. Practice it ourselves and encourage and applaud it when we see it in others.
Luckily, I’ve just fallen off my soapbox. Ahem.
As someone that gets banned from Sheila’s blog once every couple of years, I try to be overly sensitive (and still fail at times) because sometimes the written word can be misinterpreted in tone.
That said, I thought you were very patient with the person in question. I TOO got the impression that there was a bias against childless-by-choice couples. Perhaps Foxfier had a run in with a few holier-than-thou types that consider their childless choice as very noble and the only environmentally correct choice.
I can imagine your strike prone “friend” to the north would be saying if he and his girlfriend decided not to have children.
That may be a projection on my part…. but I hate seeing people misunderstand each other and cut out of discussions; I’m keenly aware of having jumped the handle a couple of times myself with no way to make amends. So – off I go –
Not to put words in Foxfier’s combox or anything, but I think she is coming from a place where the childless look down on parents – people whose own views are extreme and diametrically opposed to the “full quiver” folks, in that they think people with larger families are despoiling the Earth and consuming more than their fair share of resources, and how dare they… “breeders” and “fascist repressors of wimmyn” and all that hogwash. Hence, the “genocide by proxy” comment.
I’ve been trying to stay out of this whole topic because anything I say might just make it all worse. It’s very personal. Just thinking of you all, is all.
Communication is such a hard thing. I honestly believe that a lot of people who leave cryptic comments don’t realize they’re being so vague. They’re drawing on life experiences or shared understandings that the rest of us don’t have. However, they expect us to relate to their implications, ad-hoc euphemisms and/or area dialectics.
I recall a conversation I was having with my mother in law a few years after J-mom and I married. She was talking about how she was reading a book or taking some class about relationship communications. That, when we communicate, we can think we are speaking clearly, yet the audience is reading a lot into how we say the things we say, why we are saying them, the particular words we use, etc., etc. I didn’t think much of it at the time, but I have certainly come to know the truth of it. I interpret things quite literally, yet my wife attempts to read more meaning into words than are perhaps meant. I find it fascinating. In fact, after I finish my Communications degree, it’s something I want to spend some time studying.
Anyway, I say all that just to echo your sentiments about politeness, kindness and common sense. If you’re going to take the time to leave your thoughts somewhere, especially when it’s your first-ever comment, take some time to ensure the clarity of what you wrote for heaven’s sake.
Seems like sometimes people think that the Internets is a win/lose game and you “MUST BE RIGHT!†and if someone has a different point of you, “THEY MUST BE WRONG!†There was a great XKCD comic on this subject a while ago that Nightfly linked to. It was just too true.
Cullen — You’re so right. Interpretation is so subjective. What frustrated me with this last example is that I wasn’t the only person to question what she meant and that I asked her repeatedly — and I thought politely enough — to explain what she meant. And apparently a point came where she was just DONE with the entire interaction.
Bah. It’s just my closure-seeking ways tormenting me.
Funny, I thought she was a guy, for some reason.
And yes, if someone asks you four times to explain more, you’re not getting it across.
You weren’t rude- they were obscure and unwilling to be clearer.
JFH and NF — Somehow, you guys ended up in moderation and I just noticed it. Sorry!
Yeah. Maybe it’s been people who think it’s the environmentally correct choice. I don’t know. I shouldn’t let it bother me. I guess when someone leaves the blog upset — as I believe she has — I always feel responsible.
Sal — No, a female. And thanks.
Tracey – yes, very disappointing, because the conversation itself was a good one. It is when people show their assumptions (and I include myself – we all do it, like I said in my comment on that post) – and then can’t go, “wow … that came out wrong …” or “I guess I just ASSUMED that such and such was true because it’s true for me …” It’s the most human thing in the world and moments like that are what really make a conversation worthwhile. Lots of blogs are just moan-fests – how everything sucks – with everyone chiming in with, “You know what I don’t get???” And there is certainly something cathartic about bitching about what you “don’t get” – but those conversations have always bored me to tears. Especially when they seem aimed at my very BEING. By that I mean: my site is a personal site. My assumption is that people who read me actually like me, and like talking about what I talk about. That has been an error of mine, and has taken some handling. But when someone shows up who seems inherently hostile to what I am interested in – I am always curious about it – because I make no claims at being important or relevant. I am not talking about the hot topics of the day. It is ALL ABOUT my personality. I don’t need to be liked by everyone – but when someone finds me inherently irritating – I just wonder at their motivations to keep reading me.
Her comment, on the surface of it, was benign – but like I said to you, I had to read it a couple of times, because it wasn’t clear, and then it started to occur to me – Huh. She’s operating under a lot of assumptions here – is she aware of it?
It wasnt openly hostile – I mean, we all know THOSE kinds of comments – but it was a bit baffling.
You gave her an opportunity not to just defend herself – but to talk on a deeper level. It might have been interesting – for her, for us … You know. Being a grownup. It’s a shame.
BTW, this is the comic Cullen mentioned.
Tracey – “going into moderation” is rather ironic when applied to anything I write. 😀
I’ll throw my two cents in, if no one minds. 🙂 First, yes, it really is hard to manage tone in a comment–but on top of that, sometimes it’s hard to get a read on the audience of the comment. I tend to loiter silently for a lonnnnnng time at a new blog so I can get the feel of the peeps who read and comment, how the blogger responds, etc. It’s hard not to run away if one feels rebuked, though–whether a rebuke actually happened or not. You tend to dialogue, Tracey, so I totally see where you’d be disappointed.
As for Foxfier, well, I’ve seen her in the past as a regular commenter at another blog I don’t want to name but is co-blogged by a husband and wife who are Catholic and have several children, and often discuss issues relating to having children/not having children. I do get the impression she’s on the younger side, age-wise. That may or may not shed much light, but if I had to guess I’d say she thought she’d found a group of people in support of large families like she does over at the other blog. A case of mistaken beliefs?
Kate P — I know what you mean about loitering. I do that too — did it over at Sheila’s for a long time. Actually, believe it or not, I’m rather shy about commenting on others’ blogs. I get nervous about it — I really do. But I think it’s smart to feel the person out a bit first. This particular commenter had commented here before, but I wasn’t all that familiar with her, as I told her. I think knowing the person a little better works best on both sides of the exchange — for the reader and the blogger.
And as Sheila said, the comment wasn’t openly hostile but the explanation of why she felt that way was totally baffling to me. I really DID want to understand what she meant. I noticed some pictures over on her site and she seems young, as you mentioned, which may — or may not — explain the running-away impulse.
Ack. I get too easily bothered by these things. And I tend to blame myself too.
As someone who has been known to experiece keyboard in mouth a little too often, I find I get into trouble most when I throw up a comment too fast without giving enough thought to what I’m saying. Then go back, re-read and think, “Holy crap, what was I thinking?” It’s a habit I find quite difficult to break. I’d like to say that it’s more of a problem on the internet, but I dine on toejam just as frequently.
As for Foxfier, I find myself agreeing with with Kate P. I do think there is a growing contingent of people like Nightfly described – the anti-breeders – but I don’t see how your posts could have been construed as anti-child. I don’t know if she was trying to explain away the radio personality’s statements or what … it would have been nice to engage in a little dialogue.
Not that I don’t often find myself agreeing with Kate P. She’s quite agreeable.
It comes down to assumptions again – I get that sometimes – that people assume because I appear on a certain blogroll that the conversation will be identical to the one at the original blog. I guess I don’t think like that – but then most of the blogs I read are either personal websites, that I go to because I like the writing (regardless of whether I feel connected to the person’s lifestyle – like Pioneer Woman – we have nothing in common except our love of old movies and Sylvia Plath – but I read EVERYTHING she writes) – or art-focused blogs – movies or books – where the assumption is that everyone is there because they love books and conversations about them. You don’t have to do a lot of arguing – although people have wildly differing opinions about the value of certain books/movies, etc. But what you DON’T have to argue is the validity of having such in-depth conversations in the first place. THAT is the struggle I have had on my blog, since I started out with one group and then segued to another topic. People still seem to mistake my blog for the Wall Street Journal and wonder why I am not “covering” certain things. It’s kind of funny. But again, if you assume that there will be perfect agreement on all the blogs on a particular blog-roll – you’re obviously mistaken. Hang out a bit, test the waters, see if you like the vibe …
I’m like you Tracey – I am only a regular “commenter” on a couple of blogs and those people I pretty much consider friends.
I got a vicious piece of anonymous hate mail 2 days ago – this woman (I figured out who she was) was enraged that I wasn’t providing a continuous narrative – I mean, she didn’t say that – she said, “stop being so mysterious. it makes you look crazier than you already are.” This comes from her ASSUMPTION that I SHOULD be “telling all” and that my blog SHOULD be a “today I went to the store and bought some milk” kind of blog – but it isn’t that and it never was.
Very strange.
My comment after Kate’s looks kind of odd without the context of the one that went into moderation. I assure you, there was a point.