I’ve always believed that reactions achieve little and that when it’s a war of words, silence is golden. There is no sense in speaking when others are shouting. And that is the thought I’ve kept with me during the last few days. What is the sense also of explaining yourself to people who have already made up their minds? I’m not here to win a popularity contest and to prove to every single person reading me that the only “right way” to do things is my way. No, it isn’t and I don’t want it to be. I could be wrong, so could be you. Are you here to convert me to your point of view, because I’m not here to convert you to mine?
However, I’ve been told by friends that silence could also be taken for acquiescence. And I have readers asking me questions which I feel is unfair to ignore. A lot of you have already judged me on the basis of assumptions made by someone else. And whether they are assumptions or facts is a matter of belief – your belief in someone’s word. I could tell you the facts but if you don’t have faith in me you would still believe somebody else’s assumptions of me.
On the other hand, if I do not give you the facts you do not have a choice to believe in my word. And I want to give you that choice.
The truth is that no post of mine, especially not this one, was written as a reaction to anyone else’s post or comment. I don’t remember ever writing anything in reaction to what some other blogger has said, so why would I do it now?
It is extremely painful for me to have to explain a post such as that because it was written from the most vulnerable part of my heart. Let it suffice to say that I wouldn’t ever write about my parents on my blog if I was leaving them open to judgement. And I did write about my mother in this post, the same post in which I wrote about my friends – some of who read this blog, the same post in which I talked about a mommy blogger. If I wanted you to judge the mommy blogger, I would also be expecting you to judge my friends and mother, wouldn’t you say? And I fight tooth and nail to protect both those people from any criticism – justified or otherwise.
If a fellow blogger was talking about me in the same breath as the people she so cherishes, I wouldn’t ignore that. Of course, that is not to be taken as the slightest hint that the blogger does mean to me as much as my mother or my friends – no blogger does. It simply means that the post was not written with the intention of being “manipulative”, to prove a point and was entirely about my feelings vis-à-vis what they say about my being a non-mother (for lack of a better word). Why anyone would think that they have been “misrepresented” is not for me to answer.
So why did I approve the “abusive” comment on my blog by a person called Ayona, you will now ask. Here’s why: because a). no one was named in the comment and I did not think there would be people ready to claim the epithet that Ayona used in her comment b). because I was totally in agreement with Ayona when she/he said that the blogger should be ignored c). because I did not think “bitch” was such a big deal. Yes, I said that! Everyone uses language differently – for me “bitch” isn’t a person’s character assassination. May be you don’t think so, I’m fine by that. But that’s how I think. I wouldn’t take the high moral ground and call it “unparliamentary”. If it were that for me, I wouldn’t play on the word again two posts later!
Perhaps, you think I should have made that clear before agreeing with an anonymous comment. But like I heard someone say, “if you’re going to dissect each (comment), you’re sure to find plenty to object to.”
Also, there’s a lot been said about how I confirmed on email that I was in fact talking about the specific mommy blogger who had mailed me. I DID NOT. Again, it is my word against someone else’s but just for the record: I was mailed asking if the post in question was about her, as someone had told her it was. My reply was, “The post is entirely about me and nobody else.” Which was accepted as the truth but with the rider that I was not expected to be approving comments such as the one Ayona left on my blog. To which I replied, “Irrespective of what is expected of me, I wouldn’t mind calling someone who makes me cry ‘an insensitive bitch’, mommy blogger or otherwise!”
Did I call the blogger who emailed me an “insensitive bitch”? No. However, to someone who is convinced that the post is about them, it may certainly seem offensive.
I do understand that much but I do not understand why that assumption could be turned into something so ugly. I do not understand the unnecessary need to talk about my uterus when I’m not talking about hers! You call that gutsy, I call it foolish. Let’s argue it.
I also do not understand why bloggers who have been reading me said they were shocked but did not bother to ask what my side of the story was. At no point did I turn off comments. If I had to do that, why would I turn them on two days later? As soon as I knew there was a problem with posting comments on my blog, I attended to it. And there was always the email address given in my profile that I could have been contacted on. Some of you used it, thank you.
I’m not quite happy with the idea of my blog becoming any kind of battle ground. But I haven’t been given much of an option. If I don’t publish criticism about me, I’m being manipulative/sneaky/cunning/cowardly – take your pick. But if I do, I must also publish comments against people who’ve raked up this whole controversy. However, I wouldn’t want you to use my blog as a platform to vent your ire against anyone else.
Hopefully, I’ve said all that there was to say to this. If you still don’t get it, you may be wasting your time here. Can we now move on?