The nature of blogging is that it presents an opportunity to discuss controversial subjects which might otherwise never see the light of day.  At its best, blogs will generate discussion and debate.  At its worst, it will just be boring and generate monumental disinterest.

When posting an article on a blog, I’m caught between the need to explain myself within an inch of my life so that every reader understands my point and attributing to the reader a certain level of intelligence and understanding so that I don’t have to explain every nuance or detail.  Obviously, different readers come here with different experiences, sensibilities and levels of comprehension.  That’s life in general, and it doesn’t change here.

A few days ago, I posted a cartoon that caused an uproar among women, most notably the Feminist Law Professors.  They were highly offended by the cartoon, and felt no qualms in letting me know it.  A bit overly sensitive?  On the look-out for things that offend them?  Clearly, which is too bad because it blinded them from the point of my posting.  As I say, I can’t accommodate the level of sensitivity versus intelligence of every reader. 

But this particular post brought some other very interesting reactions that I didn’t anticipate.  I receive emails from people who were appalled at the knee-jerk reactions.  I received emails from people who were as flagrantly sexist as the cartoon posted, who encouraged me to stand up for sexism.  I received emails from people who thought I should burn in hell for having maligned women.  I received a lot of emails.

Having realized that my point was missed by so many, and that the wrong message was received, I decided to remove the cartoon.  That generated yet more emails about my being a wimp for caving in to the feminists.  Of all the reactions I received, this is the one that pissed me off the most, and gives rise to this aside.

I have absolutely no qualms about expressing my views on a subject of controversy, and taking the heat for my opinions.  I suffer no delusion that my views are universal, or that I am right about everything and anyone who disagrees is either wrong or a blithering idiot.  Reasonable people can differ.

My analogy would be to lawyer jokes.  Many lawyers hate them and are highly offended.  Personally, I think some are incredibly funny, not because they are true (although sometimes the jokes can be much truer than we want to admit), but because of the way they reflect people’s perception of lawyers.  I can laugh at myself, my profession and all of our foibles.  I hope I never take myself so seriously, or become so pompous, that I can’t appreciate the humor of life, at its many levels.

However, the purpose of my posting a flagrantly sexist cartoon was not to show that I was anti-woman or sexist.  That would have been much too superficial.  It was just the opposite, though obviously too subtle for some to grasp.  So while I will happily take the heat for things I believe, I have no interest in “catching sh*t,” as Gideon so aptly put it, for things I do not believe.  Since the post did not serve its intended purpose, and in fact did just the opposite of what I intended, it was clear to me that I screwed up by posting it.  And so poof, it’s gone. 

Will I now “catch sh*t” for saying that some people were too dense to get it?  Probably, but I will happily take the heat for that one.  They didn’t.  Were they so blinded by their knee-jerk sensitivity to the perceived slight that they couldn’t muster the depth of thought necessary.  I’m sure they will let me know.  Hopefully, they won’t be as vulgar this time.  It’s not lady-like (that’s a joke.  Get a sense of humor and maybe you’ll find that I’m not your enemy).