Okay, lots of cutting and pasting in this reply, so please bear with me. I'm going to do this as straight as I can, with as little fucking about as possible (which is hard because when I get nervous I make bad jokes and use parentheses all the time. ahem), but I need to be exact, so I'm going to use the exact words.
Haus - As it happens, I don't think you have got Petey's position aright; it isn't about "zero tolerance", per se - it's about, again, consistency.
but, petey said earlier - It's funny, isn't it, how the people who claim to dislike mainstream hip hop because of the (use of the word) "bitches", usually turn out not to be people who take a zero tolerance approach to misogynistic language when used by themselves and their mates.
... which relates to a post made in October last year, quoted upthread. This irked me a bit, because it relates to something I said very early in my tenure on the board, and have since, at length, tried to defend. And, as a side note, I think it's just a bit pointless to use music tastes as a basis of making personal judgements, as Petey seemed, to me, to be doing. If he said that's not what he meant, I would have dropped it.
I'm not too clear on your position about my consistency of replies. Other than the fact that I can change my mind, I'm not sure what you're getting at. If, by consistency you mean how I intrepret as to whether or not people are genuinely joking, then I make judgements on what they say and it's context, just as you do. By Petey making the joke in the 'Is something wrong with Barbelith' thread, I thought that it may have a cernel of seriousness to it, and wanted to engage with the point he was making.
If you mean consistency as to what I will and won't say or defend (which I believe was the point Flyboy was getting at), then how can I easily reply to this? Without the luxury of knowing me IRL, all you have to go by is my words that I write, and I have spent many replies since trying to clarify my position. This is tricky, because it's not an issue I regularly examine, but it does mean that I'm willing to engage with it, or change my position as necessary.
For instance, with regard to my Bringing 'teh slags' into the situation... (Alex's gran), I have acknowledged that it was certainly wrong, and I promise you I won't be doing it again. In fact, I wrote this in the Apprentice thread explaining that I knew I was wrong - Barbelth is one of those places where you shouldn't use throwaway abuse in generalisation. It is, as others have mentioned elsewhere, a safe-space where people shouldn't have to come across 'hate-speech' (as that's what it was interpreted as) of any kind. I was using lazy, working-class (which I am, and proud) shorthand in this, which is a more intellectual space. Rather than deleting my comment, I chose to first try to defend it, and then apologise profusely when I remembered that in this space, I was in the wrong
Now, I'm not sure how much more strongly I can refute my 'slag' statements, short of editing the original thread. I don't really want to do that as it world make the rest of this discussion, which I have actually learned from, obsolete (or at least harder to understand).
Also, in the Apprentice Thread, Boboss said - when people suggest that others are being misogynistic they do not mean that they are always, and will forever be, a woman haters, just that they demonstrating misogynistic behaviour.
and I have apologised at length for displaying misogynistic behaviour, so can we please move on? |
