<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Want To Be Taken Seriously? It&#8217;s Up To You, Tweetheart.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.suzemuse.com/2010/01/want-to-be-taken-seriously-its-up-to-you-tweetheart/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.suzemuse.com/2010/01/want-to-be-taken-seriously-its-up-to-you-tweetheart/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:12:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: len</title>
		<link>http://www.suzemuse.com/2010/01/want-to-be-taken-seriously-its-up-to-you-tweetheart/comment-page-1/#comment-1249</link>
		<dc:creator>len</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:58:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.suzemuse.com/?p=1951#comment-1249</guid>
		<description>Although I agree it was a bushwhacking and the topic of should they have known better has been debated to death, I think, Jonathan, you are wrong about the middle finger aimed at new media.  There is an article by Vanessa Grigoriadis called &quot;Everybody Sucks&quot; that you should google and read.  It explains in depth how the NY blogging scene and now the print press scene has devolved in a race to the bottom of snark.  The VF6 were not victims; they were &#039;next&#039;.   

That said, I am still mystified that creatives with access to so much gear and distribution would choose to repond to this in such an uncreative way.  They could get a lot more altitude with a bit more entertaining response.  Do it the SNL way.  They are blowing off a very interesting opportunity with hurt feelings instead of handling it the way professionals can and often do when they realize that a sense of humor goes a lot further.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Although I agree it was a bushwhacking and the topic of should they have known better has been debated to death, I think, Jonathan, you are wrong about the middle finger aimed at new media.  There is an article by Vanessa Grigoriadis called &#8220;Everybody Sucks&#8221; that you should google and read.  It explains in depth how the NY blogging scene and now the print press scene has devolved in a race to the bottom of snark.  The VF6 were not victims; they were &#8216;next&#8217;.   </p>
<p>That said, I am still mystified that creatives with access to so much gear and distribution would choose to repond to this in such an uncreative way.  They could get a lot more altitude with a bit more entertaining response.  Do it the SNL way.  They are blowing off a very interesting opportunity with hurt feelings instead of handling it the way professionals can and often do when they realize that a sense of humor goes a lot further.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathon</title>
		<link>http://www.suzemuse.com/2010/01/want-to-be-taken-seriously-its-up-to-you-tweetheart/comment-page-1/#comment-1246</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Jan 2010 23:45:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.suzemuse.com/?p=1951#comment-1246</guid>
		<description>Come on.  That piece reeks of ambush.  Do you honestly believe these people would volunteer for contemptuous character assassination?  These women are not attention whores in the vacuous manner of &quot;celebutards&quot; like Heidi Montag or Paris Hilton.  I am sure they were approached with an entirely different spin on the article, focusing on the power of new media and their position as vanguards of its use.  

I know Felicia Day, for example, has said that there were multiple photo shoots from the demure to the risque and that her interview was extensive and covered many substantive topics.  In light of that, it is not so unbelievable that it was surprising to see the final article and its complete disdain for and belittling of its subjects, their intellects, and the whole concept of Twitter itself.

With multiple decades of experience in media and communications, you HAVE to be aware of journalists who selectively edit to serve their purpose.  This piece was nothing more than a written middle finger aimed by a journalist frightened at the uncertainty of old media&#039;s future.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Come on.  That piece reeks of ambush.  Do you honestly believe these people would volunteer for contemptuous character assassination?  These women are not attention whores in the vacuous manner of &#8220;celebutards&#8221; like Heidi Montag or Paris Hilton.  I am sure they were approached with an entirely different spin on the article, focusing on the power of new media and their position as vanguards of its use.  </p>
<p>I know Felicia Day, for example, has said that there were multiple photo shoots from the demure to the risque and that her interview was extensive and covered many substantive topics.  In light of that, it is not so unbelievable that it was surprising to see the final article and its complete disdain for and belittling of its subjects, their intellects, and the whole concept of Twitter itself.</p>
<p>With multiple decades of experience in media and communications, you HAVE to be aware of journalists who selectively edit to serve their purpose.  This piece was nothing more than a written middle finger aimed by a journalist frightened at the uncertainty of old media&#8217;s future.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://www.suzemuse.com/2010/01/want-to-be-taken-seriously-its-up-to-you-tweetheart/comment-page-1/#comment-1185</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:18:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.suzemuse.com/?p=1951#comment-1185</guid>
		<description>Brigitte - thanks for your comment. A valid point and one that a few people have mentioned.

Over the years, in my opinion, the word &quot;feminist&quot; has lost much of its original connotation of being about equality. I hear more and more women who identify themselves as feminists doing nothing but complaining that they aren&#039;t given a fair shake in life because they are female, yet are unwilling to do anything about it. 

The &quot;feminism&quot; that I don&#039;t want to be associated with have to do with the beliefs that women and men have to be 100% equal *at all times*. (Pay equity, yes. But having to have an exactly equal number of men and women represented at an event, or in government - these things I don&#039;t think are possible or necessary.)

I am an advocate for equality, and respect *between* the sexes. In other words, men should be fairly represented and treated well too - and not be excluded from things just because they are men - this happens all the time and nobody bats an eyelash. 

Feminism is a label I choose not to be associated with, because I feel it has a negative connotation now. Does that mean we should work to take it back? Perhaps a marketing campaign is in order. Does it make me a hypocrite? I&#039;m not so sure about that. 

I am proud to be a woman, but I earn respect because I&#039;m a human being, not because of my gender. And I think that distinction puts me more on the side of being an advocate for humans first rather than being a feminist. 

Hope that clears it up.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Brigitte &#8211; thanks for your comment. A valid point and one that a few people have mentioned.</p>
<p>Over the years, in my opinion, the word &#8220;feminist&#8221; has lost much of its original connotation of being about equality. I hear more and more women who identify themselves as feminists doing nothing but complaining that they aren&#8217;t given a fair shake in life because they are female, yet are unwilling to do anything about it. </p>
<p>The &#8220;feminism&#8221; that I don&#8217;t want to be associated with have to do with the beliefs that women and men have to be 100% equal *at all times*. (Pay equity, yes. But having to have an exactly equal number of men and women represented at an event, or in government &#8211; these things I don&#8217;t think are possible or necessary.)</p>
<p>I am an advocate for equality, and respect *between* the sexes. In other words, men should be fairly represented and treated well too &#8211; and not be excluded from things just because they are men &#8211; this happens all the time and nobody bats an eyelash. </p>
<p>Feminism is a label I choose not to be associated with, because I feel it has a negative connotation now. Does that mean we should work to take it back? Perhaps a marketing campaign is in order. Does it make me a hypocrite? I&#8217;m not so sure about that. </p>
<p>I am proud to be a woman, but I earn respect because I&#8217;m a human being, not because of my gender. And I think that distinction puts me more on the side of being an advocate for humans first rather than being a feminist. </p>
<p>Hope that clears it up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brigitte</title>
		<link>http://www.suzemuse.com/2010/01/want-to-be-taken-seriously-its-up-to-you-tweetheart/comment-page-1/#comment-1183</link>
		<dc:creator>Brigitte</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:53:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.suzemuse.com/?p=1951#comment-1183</guid>
		<description>I came over from Amber&#039;s FB post of your blog, so forgive me if I&#039;m missing something.

But I don&#039;t understand why it was necessary for you to start this post with a disclaimer that you&#039;re not a feminist. Perhaps because your subsequent statements reflect a view that directly contradicts the claim?

A feminist is a person who believes in equality of the sexes. That&#039;s all.

I found the rest of your post very well-thought-out but have to admit I was turned off from the start. Why would being a feminist preclude you from developing a thick skin and understanding the need to gain the respect of your peers? Don&#039;t all workers need to gain the respect of their peers?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I came over from Amber&#8217;s FB post of your blog, so forgive me if I&#8217;m missing something.</p>
<p>But I don&#8217;t understand why it was necessary for you to start this post with a disclaimer that you&#8217;re not a feminist. Perhaps because your subsequent statements reflect a view that directly contradicts the claim?</p>
<p>A feminist is a person who believes in equality of the sexes. That&#8217;s all.</p>
<p>I found the rest of your post very well-thought-out but have to admit I was turned off from the start. Why would being a feminist preclude you from developing a thick skin and understanding the need to gain the respect of your peers? Don&#8217;t all workers need to gain the respect of their peers?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hazel May</title>
		<link>http://www.suzemuse.com/2010/01/want-to-be-taken-seriously-its-up-to-you-tweetheart/comment-page-1/#comment-1182</link>
		<dc:creator>Hazel May</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:40:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.suzemuse.com/?p=1951#comment-1182</guid>
		<description>Hurrah! I agree with all that you said. Looking pretty and attractive and &#039;nice&#039; is fine. Looking like you should be the feature attraction on boob night at The Watering Hole? Who would take that seriously? Duh. You can&#039;t have it both ways.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hurrah! I agree with all that you said. Looking pretty and attractive and &#8216;nice&#8217; is fine. Looking like you should be the feature attraction on boob night at The Watering Hole? Who would take that seriously? Duh. You can&#8217;t have it both ways.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

