Friday, August 29, 2008

Sexism or bias against parents with special needs children?

Oh, I don't know about this.

When Councilman Doug Burlison was running for Council in 2007, I asked him if he was concerned about working a job, serving on Council and still having enough time to spend with his children. He has more children than "the average bear."

Granted, the small difference, here, is that Roberts asked if Palin would have time enough to spend with a Down's Syndrome child, but isn't it well known that special needs children can, very well, have more diverse and time consuming needs than children without special needs? That's why they are called "special needs children" in the first place, isn't it?

If it had been a female Council candidate I was questioning rather than a male Council candidate, the same question I asked might have seemed sexist, unprofessional or unethical to some but I felt it was a legitimate question, though I wasn't able to include his answer, due to word constraints, at CFP.

His answer, just summarized, was something to the effect that by serving on Council he was taking care of his children. He was investing in their future.

That seemed reasonable to me.

24 comments:

tom said...

Good for you and the only stupid question is the one NOT asked. Of course there was the sports reporter that did ask Doug Williams of the Washington Redskins if he has always been a black quaterback.

As if he might have been white some point in his life *ROFL*

Jason said...

I'm just curious why you don't have the courage to respond on my blog instead of here. Is it that you can't control the comments there?

tom said...

She has never controlled the comments here so why would she want to control comments on your blog ??

Jason said...

Then there's no reason for her not to engage the conversation there versus posting it here, Tom. She regularly posts comments on other blogs so that can't be an excuse. The only thing I can think of is that the can control what is posted here and wants to control conversations.

tom said...

Perhaps she doesn't want to post comments on your blog, did you ever think of that ??

Being a controlling individual doesn't fit Jacke therefore the reason she doesn't is her reason and she doesn't have to explain it to anyone.

At least she linked to your blog instead of making snide comments about it(which I have never seen her do) and she has your blog linked off of her blog as well.

Jackie Melton said...

"...the reason she doesn't is her reason and she doesn't have to explain it to anyone."

BINGO! :)

...and 'nuff said.

Jason said...

If she doesn't have the integrity to post there and engage the issues, that's her right, Tom. I certainly wouldn't force her to do it. However, it is also just as valid for people to question her motivation for being critical of people on her blog without being willing to discuss the matter with those people.

Busplunge said...

I sorta look on it like this:

her blog, her rules.
your blog, your rules,
my blog, my rules.

I am going to weigh in on this on the Bus after I talk to my niece and her husband who have a special needs son.

I also don't think it is a question of ability, but a question of time.

Jackie Melton said...

Jason, I gave my opinion about the topic in the entry.

I do not see where my courage and integrity is somehow bound by whether I give my opinion at my blog or in your comment section but, look, you can think whatever you want to think about that.

As far as your claim that I have been unwilling to discuss the issue with you, so far you haven't offered to discuss the issue at all, you have merely questioned the location I chose to publish my own opinion.

Jackie Melton said...

...and, Jim is right. I'm working. I have a deadline.

Momma Twoop said...

Jason said:

Then there's no reason for her not to engage the conversation there versus posting it here, Tom. She regularly posts comments on other blogs so that can't be an excuse. The only thing I can think of is that the can control what is posted here and wants to control conversations.

Conversely, one should wonder if your pressure to have her comment on YOUR blog, rather than where she chooses, stems from your urge to control the conversation. What is it that you can say THERE that you can't say here?

Jason said: If she doesn't have the integrity to post there...I certainly wouldn't force her to do it.

No, you'll just pressure, belittle, and attempt to humiliate her because she isn't posting where YOU'D like her to. Geesh, who the hell do you think you are?!

Jason further states: However, it is also just as valid for people to question her motivation for being critical of people on her blog without being willing to discuss the matter with those people.

Where is she being "critical" of you? That someone has a different opinion on any given issue than you and dares to write about it, does not equate being "critical" of you. Surely you realize that. Or perhaps, in your world, Jacke isn't allowed her OWN opinion. Perhaps opinions are allowed only by those as highly enlightened and intelligent as you and only when one's opinion matches your own. *eyeroll*

When/where has she refused to discuss the matter with you? I haven't seen it, although with the way you twist things around and whine, I can see why no one would be interested in playing in your sandbox; a sandbox wherein if all the playmates don't play WHAT you want to play, WHERE you want to play it, they're told they're cowards, control-freaks, and lacking integrity.

Goodness, grow a pair.

Jason said...

"Grow a pair" is funny coming from someone hiding behind an alias.

"Conversely, one should wonder if your pressure to have her comment on YOUR blog, rather than where she chooses, stems from your urge to control the conversation. What is it that you can say THERE that you can't say here?"

"Momma Twoop": I have no problem discussing anything here nor have I twisted anything at all although I don't expect you to admit that.

The reason I say she was unwilling to engage in conversation is that the issue was raised there, not here; so you have to question why she cannot respond where the issue was raised versus here.

I would throw your question back at you...what is it that she can say here that she can't say there where the issue was raised?

Anonymous said...

Who is this Jason person and why does he frequently take personal jabs at Jacke? arainbo

Jack said...

This is funny coming from a guy who is dodging an open discussion on my blog. (If homosexual marriage is a sin, isn't divorce and remarriage also a sin?). I've emailed him privately, posted on my blog and made comments elsewhere. Still he has not the courage to answer. Larry Litle did.

Then he attacks Jackie for ADDRESSING an issue on her own blog? He's welcome to leave comments on her blog and address it here.

That's funny as Hell.

Jason said...

You mean the post where I agreed with Jeremy Young? Or the blog that Larry made where I agreed with his good post? That's not good enough for you?

Or does agreeing with the views of others and calling them good posts not count in your mind?

Momma Twoop said...

Jason was heard to speak:
"Grow a pair" is funny coming from someone hiding behind an alias.


There you have it, folks. If you’re using something other than your full legal name, or a singularly unique first name like Jason, on the internet super highway, which happens to span only the entire globe, you’re “hiding behind an alias” rather than making a smart decision about internet safety. Ignore the experts’ warnings to protect your identity, because Jason feels your actions are dishonest, dishonorable, deplorable and deceitful. Show some spine like Jason feels he does, you cowards!

Jason spake: "Momma Twoop": I have no problem discussing anything here nor have I twisted anything at all although I don't expect you to admit that.

From what I’ve seen, my friend with the singularly unique name of “Jason,” you DO twist – like a contortionist, in fact. Saying people who aren’t self-identified in a manner YOU’RE comfortable with are “hiding behind an alias,” is twisting. Suggesting that one who highlights your blogpost and then provides their own opinion on the issue at THEIR OWN blog, is cowardly, lacking in integrity, and wanting to “control the conversation” because they can “manipulate the comments," accusations which come without ONE SHRED of evidence or support for them aside from committing the egregious act of not posting where YOU would prefer they post, is twisting in the extreme! And finally, portraying a different opinion posted by a person as someone being “critical” of you, my friend, is TWISTING.

Jason said: The reason I say she was unwilling to engage in conversation is that the issue was raised there, not here; so you have to question why she cannot respond where the issue was raised versus here.

This, too, is twisting. There is no reason to believe she is unwilling to discuss the issue with you. You freely admit here that you have no grounds for your accusation. You simply feel that is the case. You ASSumed it without any support for your ridiculous assumption. Further, her post wasn’t intended to “respond” to your post, another twisting of facts by you. She simply wanted to give her own opinion on the issue. What a concept!

In reality, Jason, thus far, YOU are the only one who has attempted to control this conversation, whether it’s by steering people away from the topic at hand or demanding that things be posted where YOU would prefer. You’ve further attempted to control the situation by badmouthing, belittling and attacking Jacke for not acting in a manner YOU WOULD PREFER her to act. It seems your accusations against others of controlling, etc., may very well stem from your own proclivities, what’s also known as “projection.” In that light, one has to wonder about your baseless accusations of others “manipulating comments” at their blogs and of people “hiding behind an alias.”

From your private email to me, I know you know my name, Jason, and I don’t care. Contrary to your allegation, I am not “hiding behind an alias.” I have no reason to hide. I, in this free world, CHOSE to use the name “Momma Twoop” for a blogger ID, a choice you would apparently deny everyone based on your irrational fear of people “hiding behind an alias.”

So sayeth Jason: I would throw your question back at you...what is it that she can say here that she can't say there where the issue was raised?

No, the question is, WHY should she have to post where YOU would prefer? Are her points or opinions any less valid here than there? Is there a bloggers’ etiquette rule stating she can’t highlight another blogger’s post and expound on that subject or give her own opinion? Only in your twisted and twisting world.

Further, Jason sayeth not.

Anonymous said...

I think Life of Jason and Jackehammer are both wrong for not commenting on my blog (I Blog therefore I deem myself important but I am really just an egocentric bore) or IBTIDMIBIARJAEB, if you will.

Jackie Melton said...

Anon 9:57,

Touche. Haw.

Unfortunately, anonymous blogs are difficult to locate and therefore, comment upon. ;)

tom said...

are we feeling left out anon 9:57 ??, but at least your getting attention now !!!

Jackie Melton said...

I'm not sure what I did to deserve all the criticism I am receiving.

Read the original entry. My opinion differed from Jason's. There were no personal remarks in criticism of Jason.

My comments in the comment section. Three:

1). "...the reason she doesn't is her reason and she doesn't have to explain it to anyone."

BINGO! :)

...and 'nuff said.

2). Jason, I gave my opinion about the topic in the entry.

I do not see where my courage and integrity is somehow bound by whether I give my opinion at my blog or in your comment section but, look, you can think whatever you want to think about that.

As far as your claim that I have been unwilling to discuss the issue with you, so far you haven't offered to discuss the issue at all, you have merely questioned the location I chose to publish my own opinion.

3). ...and, Jim is right. I'm working. I have a deadline.

I don't get it. I don't and haven't ever published an anonymous comment here or anywhere else.

There are a lot of things that have been written about me that are uncalled for and I've received a very PRIVATE apology for all this PUBLIC criticism. Go figger.

Since then, the dialog appears to be continuing over at LoJ so if you're looking for more ugliness, as if craning your head to see the car wreck you passed on your last trip, I'd direct you over there.

As usual, I'm not responsible for what other people say. Never have been. Never will be.

I expect to receive public criticm over my public blog and public column at CFP so I'm not whining, I just don't see what all this silliness is about.

See y'all after I get back from Scott(e)'s

acline said...

I'm sorry I'm getting to this late. I've cross-posted this on Life of Jason and JackeHammer. I offer the following FWIW:

I object to the Roberts' question on these ground:

1. It was asked in a conversation with another reporter, not asked of the candidate.

2. The question/observation does not attempt to address a very real issue.

Roberts and Bash are engaging in a practice typical of political reporting on TV today--a practice I object to: reporters talking to each other about issues as if they are experts. They should be reporting news, not engaging each other in speculation.

There is a legitimate question here that ought to be asked of the candidate. I would phrase it this way: What challenges does raising a special needs child present for a vice president?

Palin needs to be ready to respond to this reasonable question. What's unreasonable about the Roberts/Bash conversation is the underlying premise that one might not be able to handle both jobs well. There's absolutely no proof. Parents of special needs children hold all kinds of important positions and manage--heroically--to do their jobs and care for their children. Palin should be offered the opportunity to say what challenges with will present for her.

I've read the discussion on both Life of Jason and JackeHammer. And, really, this is getting a big ridiculous.

I agree with busplunge when he says that bloggers have the right to set the rules on their own blogs. If you're going to play this blogging game, you have to accept that fact.

I think Jason is entirely justified to deplore the Roberts/bash conversation. I agree with him.

I think Jackie is entirely justified to point out that a legitimate question exists, e.g. the one I ask above. I also think she has every (ethical) right to respond to Jason in any appropriate forum--including her own blog.

--Andrew R. Cline, Ph.D.

Jackie Melton said...

Andy,

For informational purposes, and because I think it effects every blogger to some extent (and every writer/reporter whose columns are posted online and whose Web site provides a comment section):

When a blogger writes an entry and, rather than that entry being discussed, personal issues or grievances are pursued in the comment section, and name calling and/or charges of all sorts are raised against the blogger's character, personally, rather than legitimate questions and clarifications being sought about the issue or topic, what advice would you give a blogger who tries to diffuse it by ignoring the personal comments only to have the commenter question other commenters about the intent of the blogger, the courage, the integrity, the character of the blogger?

It seems that trying to rise above it, in this instance, the personal "discussion" did not go away.

I have a blog, in part, because I like to write and share information and my opinion, but another reason I have a blog is because I like to have and host discussions between others.

Do you realize that until you left your comment, after TWENTY comments, you were, really, the first person to actually address the ISSUE rather than where I chose to post it?

I think you raised a good point in that Roberts, rather than asking Palin a more legitimate question, raised it with Bash, as though she was an expert on the subject and, I do think it can be considered legitimate criticism of Roberts that he appeared to question whether the role of Vice President would cause Palin to neglect a special needs child but, from my perspective, it was, also, a continuing affront to people who ask questions that, in other's opinions, are not as *politically correct* as they should be.

My original objective was to point out that often, and maybe this wasn't the best instance for me to make the case, but often, political correctness goes too far and often it is in the mind of the receiver. That is why I brought up Burlison and the fact that if he'd been a woman candidate as opposed to a man, I might have been considered "sexist," to have raised the question at all.

Certainly, there are sexist questions out there, I think I pointed that out, myself, when Sarah Steelman was running in the governor's primary. Sometimes, however, rather than sexism or bias I think just plain old insensitivity is in play when such questions are raised. Such, in my opinion, seemed more the case with Roberts. BUT, the point, from my perspective, was meant more to deal with what I consider, in my opinion, the overreaction and over-the-top outrage expressed when insensitivity is at play. Sometimes I think the sensationalized overreaction to such insensitivity is an equal and just as outrageous reaction and affront as the original insensitive question.

Good grief, I've asked plenty of questions, even at my early stage of writing, that might be considered insensitive and not politically correct. I have to wonder, how much information do citizens never have access to because someone is afraid of being accused of being insensitive, sexist or biased when they ask questions?

The way I view it, everyone looks at things from their own unique perspective. What was the key issue to you or someone else, in this instance, is your business and your right. But, had I been questioned about my actual entry, rather than questioned about where I happened to post it, I might have had the opportunity to share it and clarify it. There might have actually been a real discussion here.

I didn't have an opportunity to get into those thoughts. I wonder if anyone considered the entry at face value. No one sought clarification of my intent, that much is clear.

I appreciate that you raised pertinent questions and I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment but I do wish you would address the issue of the best way to diffuse such unrelated and off the topic, and in many cases, harmful and hurtful dialog in comment sections. It doesn't just happen here, I've seen it happen to writers at the News-Leader and other bloggers, as well, and, as both you and I have noted, as a blogger or newspaper reporter we must be willing to accept it, perhaps even expect it.

I'm not willing to moderate, screen, limit, or do away with my comment section, which is the only way I know to completely stop such exchanges.

I wonder how much help adding a recent disclaimer has really been.

Do you have any advice to offer the blogosphere on how to stop such unproductive activity by people in the comment section of any given blog?

---Jackie Melton, just plain old blogger and reporter

acline said...

Jackie...

The short answer: I have no advice.

If you'll give me a few days, I'll attempt "the long answer" and post it on my blog on the News-Leader site.

Jackie Melton said...

Take all the time you need. :)

If you don't mind, would you provide a link to it here when you have the chance to finish your answer?

That will alert me to it's availability.

Thank you.