I just want to make a clarification about something I wrote in my letter to Microcosm and the blog about it. In it, I talked about writing a blog awhile ago and then removing it the next day because I didn't know where the information came from. I want to clarify and say that I trusted the person who gave me the information, and I removed the blog because I wanted to do more research on my own so that I would be able to discuss it from a place of personal knowledge rather than second hand. I do believe that second hand information is extremely valid, and not everyone can or should feel like they have to do their own research into a situation to stand up against it. I feel like people feeling like they have to do their own research is part of what perpetuates the whole dynamic where survivors are always having to defend themselves and perpetrators are always getting the benefit of the doubt.
Because I have a place of power within our community, I wanted to make sure I felt well versed in the situation before making a public statement about it.
In my letter to Microcosm, I referred to Ciara's blog as inflamatory, which I really regret. I think inflaming people is essential and brave, and I think I meant it in that framework, but obviously, I should have thought deeper, because most people think of inflamitory as a bad word. Continuing to stand up against abuse when people all around you are ignoring it is frustrating and sickening, and I am very proud of and suppport the work Ciara has done. I apologize for any misunderstanding or backlash my words have caused.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
I appreciate your clarification. The original statement seemed to throw Ciara under the bus & it was very unexpected & disappointing.
Post a Comment