I get Penelope Trunk's updates from
Brazen Careerist on an RSS feed normally, and one yesterday caught me off guard. RSS subscriptions have a way of being de-contextualized and somehow sapped of their emotional overlay at times, and without the context of the usual background colors and imagery it is easy to slide from one perspective to another. Yesterday as I was stepping through my updates, moving from my
Daily Lit subscription to Dracula to
Voices on Project Management and then to Penelope's post, I was blindsided by the - how shall I put this? - brazenness of Penelope's post "
I hate David Dellifield. The one from Ada, Ohio". But what else should one expect from the brazen careerist I suppose? It isn't like she didn't warn me who she was when I subscribed.
I found her writing to be insightful, and to speak truths that some are uncomfortable hearing. (No one wants to admit that their own mother may have been bored with her job, after all.) I'm not an apologist for Trunk nor do I feel she needs one; but some of the backlash criticism of her is unfounded.
First off, some took umbrage with the author's method of handling the criticism by attempting to reach Dellifield by phone. There was much discussion about the privacy of phone information vs. the public nature of
twitter (see, for example,
Brazen Faith). But I assert that this notion of privacy is faulty. Neither your twitter feed nor your phone number are private; get used to it. Privacy in this minute and hour (let's not even consider longer archives such as day and age) are expensive; and if you haven't gone through the expense of scrubbing your number out of the directories and hiring someone to be your front to the DMV and the utility companies your contact info is not just public it is very public. So this response by Trunk to the critic isn't unmerited; instead it calls attention to the fact that our lives have, while most weren't paying attention, become increasingly networked and interlinked and accessible in a very public way. And if you aren't prepared to live that way, you need to be very considered of who you chose to engage with online. Which really shouldn't be news to anyone; we've been hearing how dangerous it is to talk to strangers online since AOL chat room days.
Some critics wondered what will happen when the kids find out what Trunk has written - "
If her kids knew she thought they were boring, what would they think of their mother?" Again, I doubt Trunk has an unreasonable expectation of privacy online. Her kids will find out someday, hopefully they find out before she's a grandmother and can thus partake of some of her wisdom. But to ask what would happen if the kids found out - well, that's as silly as wondering what
Leta will think of Heather Armstrong someday - of course the kids will find out, and these mothers both write with that foreknowledge. The kids will find out what you have done online, if they care to look. Your kids will find out, and your bosses and your clients. Count on it.
I did look askance at the use of a strong term as 'hate' in response to the criticism that was offered. Upon first glance, Dellifield's comment seems a very mild if backhanded insult - the reader's inference is that Trunk doesn't love her children for who they are - and as Dellifield doesn't seem to be a repeat-offender troll I personally might have let that slide. But upon reflection, I can see why the complaint engenders such a strong response from Trunk - her modus operandi on her blog is to address gender inequality where she finds it, and Dellifield's tweet wasn't something she had to go out and look for, it was sent right @ her. The comment does represent a subtle form of a gender inequality perspective that is grating to live with, day in and day out. I think most of the structural barriers to gender equality have been addressed nowadays - the best colleges are open to women, there is no restriction for women to practice as attorneys or doctors any longer,
women can serve in all combat positions in the military, etc. But there still exist many other cultural barriers, for example a sense that all women should be delighted to stay home with their children when that only suits a few women. People like Trunk don't hesitate to call them out and I for one am glad for that.
Finally, let's consider Dellifield. Again, from what I'm reading online he's not necessarily a bad guy. But we don't know, because he's
locked down his twitter account under the apparent assumption that this will make his tweets private (which isn't correct by the way: even
locked twitter accounts tweets will show up in search). It seems like
Dellifield just started tweeting last month so I'm willing to cut him some slack. But I need to hear his side of things, and understand some context to his comments before I would judge. And that's the wonderful thing about the transparency and interconnectedness of the internet: the opportunity is there to respond to your critics. I look forward to hearing your side, Mr. Dellifield.
(My roles: guard #3 and Passive-Aggressive Flyer Poster #2). Fun times, and got to see special guest Wilhelm Scream from Cincinnati share the stage and do their sketches also. Raucous good times!
ambassadress, Perl got herself a new toy. I'm hoping we recruited a few more volunteers - if you are interested, check out
the Barsuk records sampler, which includes 
or if you like old-school CDs, check out 
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_s2OajNnITRFfELzV05vJCtb8C46KvGfQ-ztg_OJ0TeoqBIBaX0C1GPJCJqvOJcapM6qSCPh5aaZK8JowvCOqKUrLxVxkB6opXtXZYnVVGCINLcPM8445XqJogoYgIsU2ud0QRF3TgJuO3tmACRRw_p=s0-d)
