Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

true story - personal and political

Page: (1)2

We're The Great Old Ones Now

15:59 / 11.12.01

Two male journalists gossip at the water fountain in a major US newspaper. They've known each other a long time, each regards the other's family as a part of his own.

Bob: "Want to play some squash?"

Bert: "Nah - Ellen's got me picking up the kids from school."

Bob: "Pussy-whipped again, huh?"

Bert: "Absolutely. She wears the pants."

Bob is overheard by a female colleague, who lodges a complaint, and Bob is sacked forthwith.

Ellen is furious, and Bert leads the campaign to have Bob re-instated. When it is successful, Ellen sends Bob a bouquet of Pussywillow on his first day back at work.

(Names changed and dialogue fictionalised, facts pretty much as given, ammendments welcome)

Comments?

[Edited to make it make sense. Thanks to all those of you noticed that I've gone totally mad.]

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Nick ]

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

16:08 / 11.12.01

You know, that's just political correctness gone mad. But a triumph for common sense in the end.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

16:18 / 11.12.01

[peers suspiciously at Haus]

Who are you, strangely-placid-alien Haus? Bring back my friend!

16:20 / 11.12.01

I'm confused, who gets sacked, Bert or Bob? You story doesn't make sense as written. Read your post again and tell me if it is the guy with the wife who wears the pants or the other guy.

16:22 / 11.12.01

If I'm not mistaken, that *is* your friend Haus. Taking a tremendous piss. Next to Todd.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

17:39 / 11.12.01

Entirely possible.

But back to the issue in hand...anyone else?

17:44 / 11.12.01

Ah, now I understand it! Thanks for the clarification.

Here's what i think:

You know, that's just political correctness gone mad. But a triumph for common sense in the end.

Regrettable Juvenilia

18:10 / 11.12.01

How about you tell us what you think the story illustrates first, Nick. If it's too contentious, you can always get Dao to do it.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

18:19 / 11.12.01

Christ on a bendy cross, Flyboy. That's so helpful. I don't know what I think of it - I never have. That's why I'm asking you lot.

And since it seems to bug you more than anyone else:

Dao Jones and I are not one and the same. Yes, obviously, I'm a part of him. But there's plenty more involved and no, I won't explain it to you just because you get grumpy.

On the one hand you make unhappy noises when he leaves, on the other you start bitching at me about it when he's here. Make up your fucking mind.

09:03 / 12.12.01

Are you sure it wasn't Bert and Ernie?

09:03 / 12.12.01

Is Ellen having an affair with Bob? Why is she sending him flowers if she's married to Bert? Is Ellen the female colleague who overheard the comments?

09:03 / 12.12.01

well, surely the story is about whether or not an employee should be sacked for making sexist etc comments. on the one hand, it was a private conversation and people surely have the right to be tossers in private, then again the woman at my workplace (a trade union) who announced to a colleague that she'd rather her child grow up to be a murderer than a homosexual has not been disciplined at all and that riles me. severely.

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

09:03 / 12.12.01

Well now, that's an interesting one. First up, because it clearly *wasn't* a private conversation, if it could be overheazrd, which sounds precious but I don't think necessarily is - different narratives of public and private space and entitlement. On the other hand, what exactly is offensive here? THe word "pussy" (in which case my office as a whole is in danger of being not just sacked but executed)? Or the idea of being pussy-whipped? Why did the co-worker complain? What was the logic of Bob's superiors?

I think we need more data.

The resistable rise of Reidcourchie

09:03 / 12.12.01

Originally posted by SFD

"woman at my workplace (a trade union) who announced to a colleague that she'd rather her child grow up to be a murderer than a homosexual has not been disciplined at all and that riles me."

Should this woman be allowed to express her own opinions?

09:03 / 12.12.01

i should have added that my workplace has an equal opportunities policy, signed by employees sign when they join. it's a contract, and involves treating people equally regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation.... by coming out with this stuff in the workplace (she has expressed her homophobia on many occasions to many people) she has broken that contract and should therefore be discliplined.

if she wants to rant outside the workplace, that's up to her.

09:03 / 12.12.01

And...stop.

Why?

Screw that. It's no better outside the workplace than it is in.

09:03 / 12.12.01

true. a homophobe in the street is no better than one in my office.

but in my office she has signed a contract not to be so. outside there is no such regulation. i wish there were.

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

09:03 / 12.12.01

Of course, that raises thorny issues of freedom of speech - whether people have the right to curtail others' right to speak in a way that curtails others' rights to live free of abuse....it's a bit more complicated than that, as Dao would say.

Plus, would such restrictions make it more difficult or less likely for issues of gender and sexuality to be discussed in open fora? I'm thinkign of the impact of McKinnon/Dworkin on the Candian legislature...

The resistable rise of Reidcourchie

09:03 / 12.12.01

My general feeling is you can't effectivly legislate it without giving ammunition to the soprt of opinions yu're trying to combat. Whereas letting them talk, staying calm and then destroying their arguments is much more effective.

09:03 / 12.12.01

I've said it before. Free speech is not unbounded and it carries obligations - which most people ignore.

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

09:03 / 12.12.01

Hmmmmm - that sort of assumes that people who would rather their child were a murderer than a homosexual are likely to be susceptible to reasoned debate.

The resistable rise of Reidcourchie

09:03 / 12.12.01

True but they don't half look stupid saying things like that so what point would there be in letting them remain silent/censoring them? When you do that you give them ammunition to make you out to be the enemy.

I'd like to point out I'm not married to this view it was just my initial feeling on the subject.

09:03 / 12.12.01

I really am confused by this thread. Surely the expression is 'pistol-whipped'? When did this 'pussy-whipped' talk fall into common usage? It's like when they decided to start spelling 'ecnylopaedia' as 'encyclopedia' all over again. Sheeeeesh.

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

09:03 / 12.12.01

Problem being, let's say, in an example from the "political correctness" thread elsewhere. Loony left concil leaders abolish Christmas to keep whining ethnics happy. Foreigners undermine our most cherished institutions.

It's utterly untrue. But it's oddly persuasive.

Or, to present an opinion rather than a "fact", how about the Skrewdriver line "you rape because you're a nigger ape". It may spund stupid to us, but there are a fair few people out there who it clearly *doesn't* sound stupid to. What's the appropriate response?

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

09:03 / 12.12.01

quote:Originally posted by Solaris:
I really am confused by this thread. Surely the expression is 'pistol-whipped'? When did this 'pussy-whipped' talk fall into common usage? It's like when they decided to start spelling 'ecnylopaedia' as 'encyclopedia' all over again. Sheeeeesh.

Was your dad Christopher Walken? Are you Brendan Fraser?

09:03 / 12.12.01

Sorry, 'encyclopaedia'. Come to think of it, this thread leads into a topic which is of some personal interest at the moment; reverse (to norm) sexual prejudice. I'm sure it's been barbe-covered before, but what of employment issues? My female boss is known to favour women for promotion, increased salaries etc. She also refuses to employ attractive women full-stop, and is quite happy to talk about men in a 'phwoaar' type manner, when similar talk by men in the office would be intolerable. Where does the law stand on all this? Can I sue? Would I look like a bitter and twisted misogynist if I did? (I'm not, by the by.)

09:03 / 12.12.01

Well, Hause, I've got Christopher Walken's eyes and Brendan Fraser's physique. What the fuck are you talking about?

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

09:03 / 12.12.01

Ooooh....you sound *lovely* for huggles.

Brendan Fraser. Christopher Walken. "Blast from the Past". In which Chrostopher Walken takes his family into a nuclear blast shelter in the 50s and they emerge into the 90s in a Brady Bunch stylee.

The resistable rise of Reidcourchie

09:03 / 12.12.01

Originally posted by Haus

"Or, to present an opinion rather than a "fact", how about the Skrewdriver line "you rape because you're a nigger ape". It may spund stupid to us, but there are a fair few people out there who it clearly *doesn't* sound stupid to. What's the appropriate response?"

Let them speak. The people who will believe it are out there any way, I'd rather they where out in the open than hiding whilst whispering to others that they are an oppressed minority (something which utterly fucks me off about the pro-hunt lobby). Basiclly you take them on with better arguments and ideas. I think in this as with a lot of other problems education of the issues is very important.

Let me turn that round, if you do censor them, where do you stop? And how do you think it would effect the sort of things that we think are good ideas? If you have a look at a lot of the opinions expressed here, I'm sure the Daily Mailites of this world would love to close us down.

I once read a suggestion that Hitler wouldn't have come to power in a heavily televised/media saturated society because he would have looked like a screaming looney. True or false?

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

09:03 / 12.12.01

Good points. So would you repeal current incitement to racial hatred legislation?

The resistable rise of Reidcourchie

09:03 / 12.12.01

No said Reidcourchie arguing himself into a cul-de-sac. I need time to think on that one but again my initial feeling is that organised incitement to racial hatred is a seperate to an individuals opinion. How do you police people's opinions without thought police or by using education?

Using your Screwdriver example, you've implied that people who hold opinions like that are unlikely to change. I disagree I think they're the most likely to change. When you get to that level of hatred you tend to wear it as a badge, it becomes a sub-cultural identifier and those are easy to grow out of and subvert to the opposite. Organisations like AFA are full of ex-skins who realised what was wrong with what they were doing. Ingo Hasselbach (I think that's right) is a prime example.

I think the most commonplace and insidious racism is the low level almost ambient and constant racism that is present in British society. It comes from people who wouldn't make the ridiculous statements like the Screwdriver quote but instead use words like "they" and "them" when describing ethnic minorities, make sweeping statements as common sense facts and sort of do the wink as if you must know what they are talking about but it's difficult to pin them down and take apart their point of view and there's really no way to deal with it except at the core.

Legislation didn't work with drink, doesn't work with drugs and I don't think it's ever worked with opinion. If we try and legislate against opinion regardless of how fucked up we feel it is it's a subjective call and I think people like us would end up on the receiving side of it a long time before the hard right (let's face it they support the war, we're damn near traitors) is.

Regrettable Juvenilia

10:21 / 12.12.01

quote:Originally posted by The resistable rise of Reidcourchie:
I think the most commonplace and insidious racism is the low level almost ambient and constant racism that is present in British society. It comes from people who wouldn't make the ridiculous statements like the Screwdriver quote but instead use words like "they" and "them" when describing ethnic minorities, make sweeping statements as common sense facts and sort of do the wink as if you must know what they are talking about but it's difficult to pin them down and take apart their point of view and there's really no way to deal with it except at the core.

Hang on... surely this is exactly the kind of thing where, if people point it out, they get labeled as hysterical over-sensitive right-on PC nutters?

11:01 / 12.12.01

"I once read a suggestion that Hitler wouldn't have come to power in a heavily televised/media saturated society because he would have looked like a screaming looney. True or false?"

The Nazis are probably the best example of early 20th century use of media saturation for their own ends; extensive use of symbols (the still instantly recognised swastika) and sloganeering, propaganda (Goering, anybody?), 'new media' (film and radio). He only seems like a screaming looney today because he lost. His somewhat eccentric histrionic style was rather fashionable at the time; think Mosley, Mussolini, most of the surrealists and pre-'talkies' acting.

And anyway, what about my boss? We were talking office sex-prejudice a minute ago, darnit, and I've got ISSUES.

11:19 / 12.12.01

solaris: is that your boss' idea of feminism? how do you know she refuses to employ attractive women? i'm not getting at you, i'm just trying to ascertain exactly how much her attitude sucks.

The resistable rise of Reidcourchie

11:56 / 12.12.01

Originally posted by Flyboy

"Hang on... surely this is exactly the kind of thing where, if people point it out, they get labeled as hysterical over-sensitive right-on PC nutters?"

They may be but that is not when I choose to use PC as a criticism. However this does tend to suggest why the more blatently and easily legislated examples of prejudice are paid attention to rather than the more insidious kind.

And Solaris those are good points about Hiler's use of the media.

Page: (1)2