<?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: &#8220;Seal Press Saved My Life&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2008/04/30/seal-press-saved-my-life/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2008/04/30/seal-press-saved-my-life/</link>
	<description>Author, Speaker, Professor, Shattering Gender Myths</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:44:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Victoria Marinelli</title>
		<link>http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2008/04/30/seal-press-saved-my-life/#comment-53820</link>
		<dc:creator>Victoria Marinelli</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2008 05:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/04/30/seal-press-saved-my-life/#comment-53820</guid>
		<description>Hello Hugo, and thanks.

For the record, I think Seal Press has made some flabbergasting mistakes of late, mistakes I&#039;m inclined to think would &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; have been made during the era in which I was first reading their books. They were, in fact, far more radical back then - and far less commercial. I don&#039;t know that they would necessarily have survived without having taken a more commercial shift (as their editors have, in recent months, maintained). But commercial viability and cultural sensitivity need not be opposing values (indeed, they could, and should be quite compatible). 

So while I&#039;m grateful to them for a certain, undeniable legacy, I don&#039;t give them a free pass with regard to recent missteps. (Missteps they have, themselves, been working to take responsibility for.)

What I have a problem with is the reactionary impulse within some quarters of the blogosphere, the drive toward righteous piling-on. There has been, of course, thoughtful and engaged constructive criticism - helpful and necessary - but there has also been a kind of frenzy to condemn, a desire &lt;em&gt;to be seen&lt;/em&gt; (this is the operative phrase) on the side of the righteous, rather than a clear interest in working to facilitate justice. 

Besides being a fan of literature and constructive feminist discourse, I&#039;m also a fan of not throwing proverbial babies out with their undeniably foul bathwater. They messed up, for sure. But part of the strength of Seal&#039;s legacy is - I hope - the kind of staying power that will make them stick around in earnest, to hear and, most importantly, grow from the entirely valid criticisms that has been leveled. 

Assuming Seal will rise to that occasion is one investment of faith; hoping that other feminists will address the issues that have arisen thoughtfully (which is not to say without anger!) is another such investment. I would simply hope that this could be less about egos and righteousness and finger-pointing and torch-wielding, and more about the less glorious, less apparently &quot;link-worthy,&quot; hard work of engendering justice, and fostering mutual understanding whenever possible.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello Hugo, and thanks.</p>
<p>For the record, I think Seal Press has made some flabbergasting mistakes of late, mistakes I&#8217;m inclined to think would <em>not</em> have been made during the era in which I was first reading their books. They were, in fact, far more radical back then &#8211; and far less commercial. I don&#8217;t know that they would necessarily have survived without having taken a more commercial shift (as their editors have, in recent months, maintained). But commercial viability and cultural sensitivity need not be opposing values (indeed, they could, and should be quite compatible). </p>
<p>So while I&#8217;m grateful to them for a certain, undeniable legacy, I don&#8217;t give them a free pass with regard to recent missteps. (Missteps they have, themselves, been working to take responsibility for.)</p>
<p>What I have a problem with is the reactionary impulse within some quarters of the blogosphere, the drive toward righteous piling-on. There has been, of course, thoughtful and engaged constructive criticism &#8211; helpful and necessary &#8211; but there has also been a kind of frenzy to condemn, a desire <em>to be seen</em> (this is the operative phrase) on the side of the righteous, rather than a clear interest in working to facilitate justice. </p>
<p>Besides being a fan of literature and constructive feminist discourse, I&#8217;m also a fan of not throwing proverbial babies out with their undeniably foul bathwater. They messed up, for sure. But part of the strength of Seal&#8217;s legacy is &#8211; I hope &#8211; the kind of staying power that will make them stick around in earnest, to hear and, most importantly, grow from the entirely valid criticisms that has been leveled. </p>
<p>Assuming Seal will rise to that occasion is one investment of faith; hoping that other feminists will address the issues that have arisen thoughtfully (which is not to say without anger!) is another such investment. I would simply hope that this could be less about egos and righteousness and finger-pointing and torch-wielding, and more about the less glorious, less apparently &#8220;link-worthy,&#8221; hard work of engendering justice, and fostering mutual understanding whenever possible.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

