A gender agender

Originally posted by Breaca
I don’t believe that the content can be separated from the words.

Originally posted by nemesio
In the cold hard medium of internet communication, words ill-chosen can cause totally unexpected reactions. We are unable to discern inflection, gesture, tone of voice and, as a result, intent. People see (rather than hear) one wor ...[text shortened]... ome of his values at one time or another? It made people think.

Originally posted by nemesio
In the cold hard medium of internet communication, words ill-chosen can cause totally unexpected reactions. We are unable to discern inflection, gesture, tone of voice and, as a result, intent. People see (rather than hear) one wor ...[text shortened]... writer can change that meaning in very profound ways.

Nemesio

Originally posted by pradtf
Based on what you have written in your post, are you suggesting that the pimping threads are some sort of equivalent to an RHP All in the Family; that the role the CPP plays is some sort of equivalent to a RHP Archie Bunker; and that the CPP is some sort of equivalent to an idiot?

Originally posted by nemesio
Prad,
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify.

continued from above

I was thinking of (CPP's parody of RBHill's "Why I should be a Jesus fan" posts), CPP was making a parody using a particular persona
While I have said that it may even be noble of the CPP to lead a crusade on behalf of those being sent to hell (my understanding is that it's going to be a pretty crowded place), I really cannot comment on this, since I haven't looked into it. There seems to be plenty to do in this thread, into which the pimping issue has crept for some reason, with royalChicken and your post.

But I can comment on this:

CPP's parody of pimp, wherein he expresses himself derogatorily
Now clearly, this is not the case. There isn't anything 'derogatory' about the CPP itself - other than the way it treats the members of the 'stable' and the way it has treated some of the members of the RHP community.

Now I agree with you that it may be likely that if it came out that "this persona was really encouraging people to become pimps or degrade women", then the CPP would be voluntarily buried. However, does it really need to come to that? Is it not sufficient that hoes are a demeaning label attached to women, that pimps exploit and abuse women (perhaps, not all pimps but certainly the CPP does), that the CPP has been not on its best behaviour with even some members of the RHP community?

Now I know that the spectres of humour and censorship loom above somewhere. Both have been dealt with extensively in the pimping thread between TheSkipper and myself and perhaps you might enjoy reading them.

But there are plenty of ways to be humorous without degrading women. This place doesn't have to turn into an adolescent male's 'locker room' where it is 'amusing' to crack jokes about women, their various body parts, their various articles of clothing, and what you can do to them, because although this behaviour doesn't "cause" the attitudes society has about women, it can certainly "influence" them and apparently with a pretty high probability too. And even if it didn't, what kind of people are we to get our jollies knowing that this humour comes at the expense of our daughters, sisters and mothers? They are women first - and so are hoes.

Finally, RHP is a public forum. It is not a personal playground to exercise one's freedom of screech. It doesn't matter if the majority of the members here wanted to do so:

"Just because a majority thinks a law is just does not mean it is. There have been and are lots of laws that most people think are wonderful that are oppressive, unjust, malicious, or stupid."
nemesio
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?id=13147&page=4

and what an example, with Rosa Parks, you provide!

Fortunately, the law seems pretty clear here thanks to the TOS:

You agree to not use the Service to:

Post, email or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;

Harm minors in any way;

"Stalk" or otherwise harass another;

So it seems that the ho/pimp comedy show is abusive, vulgar, obscene, and otherwise (sexist) objectionable, even though the CPP is supposedly "poking fun at the pimp lifestyle itself" and even though some people find it funny. It certainly doesn't seem right for minors who are on this site who are neither 'prepared' nor 'right'. And certainly the CPP has to some extent 'harassed' those (affectionately known as the SSS) who have shown opposition to activities that are both a violation of the TOS and a denigration of women.

I do not think the TOS is at fault here. Rather I think if certain members decide that this is the place to entertain themselves in this fashion, it is their 'law' that is being "oppressive, unjust, malicious" - regardless of what degree of majority they hold.

In friendship,
prad

Prad,
I deeply appreciate your comments and can't contest a thing you say, especially since it is relegated largely the realms of opinion and taste. It did make me think about my views and, upon consideration, I hope the following clarifications and thoughts might help.

First, to be absolutely clear, you won't find me intentionally advocating, ever, the oppression of any individual or groups of individuals. My only active intolerance is to intolerance. Everything else is whatever latent prejudices I have within myself and fight actively against every day.

The citations you give of CPP are or are not offensive, in my mind, depending on Cribs' intent. That is, if a person really believes that Cribs truly means these things and uses CPP to project them, then I would agree they are offensive.

However, if one believes that Cribs is parodying by means of extreme portrayal of a triumphant pimp (as if that lifestyle had something about which to be triumphant), like Archie, CPP becomes the fool and his idiotic stances become disempowered.

And, like Archie is to O'Connor, given Cribs' other posts on a variety of subjects, I am inclined to believe the latter. Could I be wrong? Certainly and I will keep my eye on the subject.

Now, it's hard to find defensible explanations for most of the posts from Cribs that you cited. I'd start with dividing CPP from Cribs. Anything in a "Pimpin' Thread" has to be discarded as "tryin' to maintain." It's CPP's (as separate from Cribs) attempt to dismiss rational argument (the very argument that Cribs engages in as a general rule). Do I applaud his dismissal of discussion? No. It would be sufficent for him to make the occasional rhyme or give the occasional lesson and not chime in afterwards. I think his responses are largely lash-backs towards people who are lashing themselves at what they perceive to be Cribs in his CPP posts.

Now, in this specific thread (a gender agender), he responded. You wrote "CPP cuts in..." but I actually believe that it wasn't CPP, but Cribs. I believe that he misunderstood iamavegan's post and, in an effort to be ironical, was off the mark. RoyalChicken clarified what was the essence of Cribs' post, but the latter was rather ham-handed in his delivery, as opposed to the more elegant former.

When he wrote "If RC's circle of friends exhibit...," I think we are getting a direct insight into Cribs himself. Obviously he is very sensitive to people's carte blanche use of the discrimination buzz word. The post, which certainly could have been worded more constructively, betrays a certain anger tempered with arrogance. Perhaps he has had bad experiences with feminists, perhaps his understanding of what feminism is or is not does not concord with iamavegan's, mine or yours (and here we enter the trouble with words as symbols and the sterility inherent to the electronic delivery of them). My experience with Cribs in other threads is that he tends to be thoughtful and considerate (though at times controversial), and in private messaging has demonstrated patience, intelligence, and has shown himself to be an able teacher. I haven't followed him since the beginning of time, nor have I read everything that he has written; I don't even pay especial attention to him as I do other posters, but that has been my personal experience.

Thich Nhat Hahn teaches that when someone causes suffering, it is because they themselves are suffering; in this case where Cribs is obviously not CPP and is making such pointed generalities directed at specific people, I am moved to compassion for him, for he is only seeing (and perhaps only has experienced) the negative side of what is often and should be a positive movement and as a result is motivated to respond negatively rather than constructively.

I am going to quote a large section of your second half below:
pradtf wrote:
Now I agree with you that it may be likely that if it came out that "this persona was really encouraging people to become pimps or degrade women", then the CPP would be voluntarily buried. However, does it really need to come to that? Is it not sufficient that hoes are a demeaning label attached to women, that pimps exploit and abuse women (perhaps, not all pimps but certainly the CPP does), that the CPP has been not on its best behaviour with even some members of the RHP community?

I agree that CPP's humor has straddled the fence more than a few times, largely because he has a tendency to overdo it and, I believe, is over-sensitive to the cries of "Misogynist!" RC's point that the sexist card is often overplayed in inappropriate situations, reading into events things that are not there (as is the racist card, and every other one). Perhaps Cribs' mindset is accidently leaking into CPP when CPP demonstrates a low threshold to the obvious sexistness of his comments. Perhaps it is as the result of his being perennially frustrated that people can't see (as extreme as he is) that he is not serious, but joking. Only Cribs could truly attest to this Is they way he dismisses them in good taste? No. But dictating taste is a tricky road...

One of the dangers, of course, is the PC movement. Now, I am a big fan of sensitivity, but there are some words that are considered not PC that are just ridiculous. For example, a congressman used the word "niggardly" in chamber and there was literal uproar. It shut down discussion on the agenda item at hand for I don't know how long. Thousands of tax dollars were literally flushed down the toilet as people argued whether or not "niggardly" was offensive, and the media's coverage and many of the editorials that followed were nothing short of ludicrous. I find this absurd, but there it was. What is and is not offensive is very, very difficult to nail down. And, I maintain, that the intent of the person is a critical factor (and of course, it's subjective and impossible to accurately define what's in a person's head!).

pradtf wrote:
But there are plenty of ways to be humorous without degrading women. This place doesn't have to turn into an adolescent male's 'locker room' where it is 'amusing' to crack jokes about women, their various body parts, their various articles of clothing, and what you can do to them, because although this behaviour doesn't "cause" the attitudes society has about women, it can certainly "influence" them and apparently with a pretty high probability too. And even if it didn't, what kind of people are we to get our jollies knowing that this humour comes at the expense of our daughters, sisters and mothers? They are women first - and so are hoes.

Is CPP's humor usually low fruit on the tree? Of course. Often it's just slightly above fart jokes, no doubt. I see you are making passing reference to my causation thread, with good reason. Here's the question to ask, I think: Do CPP's (initial) posts (and not excusing his rather short-fused responses) influence the very behavior it appears to endorse? My answer is no; rather, the posts themselves by their extreme character depricate the deplorable nature of the pimp lifestyle and thus the attitudes that pimps endorse. Who is the butt of the humor, women or CPP? Truly, by ironically speaking so positively of the horrors of prostitution, CPP is the butt.

Lastly, regarding the TOS and free speech (screech, as you say). If Russ wanted to censor any and all of Cribs' posts, or mine, or yours, it's his right. I believe that we have no right to speech here; it's his site. If he wanted to demand that we sign each post "I love Russ" and censored all who didn't, it's his right. No one is obligated to be here, no one can make a case for a right to pursue their happiness here and not some other chess site. They could start their own site or boycott it, or whatever. I would never maintain that CPP has a right to make these posts, or anyone but Russ.

You make a good point that minors may read this site and, lacking the depth and maturity that we as adults have, might misunderstand the CPP's writings as endorsements of pimps. There is certainly this very real risk. Is the solution to make all forums suitable for 8 years or older? Hmm... I don't think so. I think parents have a responsibility to monitor the activities of their child. There are far worse things which are far more easily available and more mainstream on the web; a parent who does not take the time to observe where their child is going online should not have internet access or pays the price for it. That having been said, if Russ were to decide tomorrow that CPP's banter should stop, that ends the debate for me. Would Cribs leave the site in protest? Possibly. Would I? No. Would others applaud? Probably.

But, have there been people who have left in protest of Cribs' persona? I doubt it. And if they have, I am sure there are people equally turned off by RBHill's Christiano-centric salvation material as well.

continued:

pradtf wrote:
So it seems that the ho/pimp comedy show is abusive, vulgar, obscene, and otherwise (sexist) objectionable...

The TOS, and perhaps you, works off of the assumption that all vulgarity or obscenity is always objectional. (I understand the term "abusive" as abuse of a specific, real person, not abuse of Katya, the fictional prostitute, for example.) And my essential point from my original post that I do not hold this to be the case. I am working off of the assumption that CPP is a fantastical non-character who is proud of himself while we shake our knowing heads knowing that he is pathetic. In that way, his parody is successful (although, admittedly he crosses the line from time to time).

However, if CPP=Cribs, this is a different story altogether.

I hope that these comments better articulate my views and help you appreciate them, which may very well be different from yours. I am,

Sincerely yours,
Nemesio

Nemesio for President! There is more wisdom, clarity, and honesty
in these two posts than I have heard throughout the entire
election process. It's too bad our electoral system makes it
completely impossible for you to lead our country. I would take
my pimpin' ass right to the polls and vote for you, trusting that
you would reason about national issues as well as you do the
issues in our local community here.

The butt,
Dr. Cribs

Originally posted by nemesio
I deeply appreciate your comments and can't contest a thing you say, especially since it is relegated largely the realms of opinion and taste. It did make me think about my views
It is very kind of you. You always seem to take the trouble to answer thoughtfully and courteously. It makes discussion with you a pleasure. It would also appear that we think the other seems to enjoy reading our rather lengthy posts. I can confirm, at least on my part, that is so 🙂

While I appreciate that you feel you can't contest anything I have said because they are in the realms of "opinion and taste", may I suggest that it is really because some things are beyond "opinion and taste". I hope that I am able to demonstrate that to you in this post in addition to the truth that often our choice of "opinion and taste", determine the sort of reality we make for ourselves.

First, to be absolutely clear, you won't find me intentionally advocating, ever, the oppression of any individual or groups of individuals. My only active intolerance is to intolerance.
There is no need to clarify this, my friend. One does not speak the name Rosa Parks unless one is committed to the dignity of all individuals. I can see from your posts (which as you note I have paid considerable and deserving attention to), that these matters are of great importance to you. I can see that you want to fight discrimination in the best way possible, so that it doesn't result in more of the same. I happen to admire a great deal of what you have written on RHP. I would even encourage you to run for president, though I might caution you on your choice of campaign manager 😀

Sometimes, though, one needs to be a bit 'intolerant' to certain activities. "Live and let live" is fine in principle, but needs some tempering so it doesn't get confused with "Do and let do". My intolerance is to injustice - and I think that may be the same for you.


I'd start with dividing CPP from Cribs.
I am not keen in discussing Cribs, because I am not commenting on the latter. I have not had the pleasure of a PM from him as you have. But you seem to want to do this, for some reason, even though I have carefully tried to avoid it, so I will comply to some extent.

I do not think it is particularly relevant that he might be

"very sensitive to people's carte blanche use of the discrimination buzz word"
"betrays a certain anger tempered with arrogance"
"thoughtful and considerate"
"has demonstrated patience, intelligence"
'has caused suffering, and is himself suffering, and therefore deserves our compassion'

The discrimination 'buzzword' was introduced by Cribs on p7. Before that it appears twice, once in ncrosby's post and once by me as in racial discrimination, neither as the buzzword. So I don't know why you think that his sensitivity is an issue here, since no one has really even talked about discrimination in the buzzword sense. It is not a matter of the discrimination buzzword that females here on this site become the butt of jokes because they are found out to be female, that it is

"difficult for a female to be listened to without being ridiculed or having to endure innuendo or just plain crudeness"
"harassed and questioned over their looks, their age, even the colour of their underwear"
"too nervous to open myself up to the comments that seem to be reserved for female posters"

No one has mentioned equal opportunity or affirmative action here. What we are talking about is common courtesy and the right that every member has to be free from harrassment.

As far as the anger and arrogance, again I do not know if that is what Cribs is suffering from. However, it has no place here. RHP is not a virtual psychologist's couch. If anger is a problem, then there are plenty of anger management courses offered off RHP. If arrogance is a problem, then perhaps he should read his own posts.

The other 3 desriptions you suggest of Cribs, may be perfectly true. In fact, I would hope that they are - but it might be useful to see them in action where it really counts, such as in a thread of this sort. There is ample opportunity to use all that thoughtfulness, consideration, patience and intelligence to help encourage a youngster like Breaca to strive towards a fairer and better world, rather than lashing out at those who do support her simply because he figures he is going to be "offended by these statements" or that they "hurt my feelings".

Anyway, I don't see why we need to discuss Cribs. (This thread really has nothing to do with pimping in the first place, but it seems to have crept in here nevertheless.) All I have been objecting to are the actions of the CPP, and I personally find it preferable to deal with that entity rather than delve into a freudian analysis of the "ganglion of irreconcilable antagonisms" that poor Cribs may be the helpless victim of.

continued below ...

continued from above ...

The citations you give of CPP are or are not offensive, in my mind, depending on Cribs' intent. That is, if a person really believes that Cribs truly means these things and uses CPP to project them, then I would agree they are offensive.
The issue really has very little to do with 'offensive' or 'intent'. In fact, what your 2nd sentence does is to slam the 'offensivity' squarely into the eye of the beholder. Now while this is an fascinating topic of discussion that has entertained us through the centuries, it is hardly something to build rules of conduct out of.

By the reasoning presented here, because CPP doesn't really intend to offend, what it does can't really be offensive and furthermore by your 2nd sentence, the person also has to believe that Cribs 'truly means these things' in order to be offended. And so you formulate the conclusion, that CPP's intention is to parody the pimp's lifestyle and that once one believes this, all offense should vaporize into the atmosphere. Now while this bit of 'legalese' seems to have elicted intense relief from the CPP, you yourself fortunately don't seem to be completely sure of its validity: "Could I be wrong? Certainly and I will keep my eye on the subject."

Let me suggest something a little simpler. First, we can discuss the concept of 'offensive' forever and get nowhere - so let's just not. Second, intent does not excuse action. As Samuel Johnson said, "Hell is paved with good intentions." So let's look at some of the hell of oppression:

Hitler seemed to have good intentions in creating the master race. Unfortunately, millions of Jews got in the way.

The South African government had good intentions for benefitting their economy. Unfortunately, it meant subjugating millions of blacks.

The British had good intentions for the Commonwealth while in India. Unfortunately, they needed to occupy the homeland of 300 million Indians.

The American settlers had good intentions of taming the wild west. Unfortunately, it became necessary to practically wipe out the resident First Nations population.

Incidentally, there was a great deal of humour generated by each of these unfortunate groups composed of hymies, niggers, coolies, injuns.

Now, of course, the CPP is not doing anything as serious as the above, right? The CPP isn't even blemishing the image of these women, so affectionately called hoes. In fact, you want to maintain that it is actually doing the opposite - that it is not the hoes who are being made to look bad even though they are being treated bad, but that it is the pimp who by his very actions of abusive control of his 'stable' invariably becomes the becomes the fool, the idiot, a veritable paragon of disempowerment.

If, Nemesio, that is really the case, then I ask you to go through this exercise that I suggested in the other thread. Here are CPP's illustrious words, but with 'horse' substituted for 'ho':

What do we gotta keep fair? Tha stable. That's right,
when you be layin' down tha law, you gotta be doin'
it so no horse's be gettin' shortchanged, ya feelin' me?
I ain't sayin' you gotz to treat all yo' horse's tha very same,
like when you buy 2 new pair of horseshoes for one, you
gotta get 'em all some new shoes. No, that ain't it at all.

What I mean is you can't go givin' no special treatment
to this horse or that horse, just cuz you like this one or don't
like that one.

Let me show you what kinda mess you gonna have on
yo' hands if you try to play favorites. Say you got
one real fine lookin' horse and tha rest of tha stable
be all jealous. Now you already got some tension there,
so tha last thing you wanna do is make it even worse.
If you always be lettin' that same fine horse always be
up in tha wit you when you walk, and all them
nasty ones gotz to walk in tha back, you just gonna make
'em madder. Sooner or later, they gonna get in a fight,
start kickin' each otha and bitin' each othaz hair out.
Then look what you left wit: a bunch scraggly lookin'
horse's that ain't gonna bring in no money, plus you gotta
be peelin' mad billz offa yo' roll so they can go to tha
horsegroomers and get all fixed up right.


It doesn't quite work does it? You can find out why in the other thread here: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?id=13062&page=4.

Ok, let's try substituting another form of person for horse.
Let's try nigger. Doesn't work does it?
How about coolie? Loses again.
Injun, perhaps? Strike three!

Even if we knew that it wasn't a CPP-styled pimp doing these things, but a South African mine owner, or a British Viceroy, or an American statesman - it still doesn't work.

Why is that? There must be something marvellous about this ho/pimp relationship. It's just not funny until you have some women being abused by a pimp.

Yet, you want to make this fascinating leap that by abusing the hoes, our poor pimp just mocks himself out and becomes a fool for our delightful amusement. I don't think so. I think that those who are laughing are doing so because it is the women who are treated as horses in a stable, because they get to see the degradation of a particular sex that it is still fashionable to degrade, because as some people seem to think 'humor just has to have this element of nastiness in it' and just as long as we can get used to it, the nastier the better.

continued below ...

continued from above ...

Now let's deal with your comments about the PC movement. I agree that it is absurd that "thousands of tax dollars were literally flushed down the toilet as people argued whether or not 'niggardly' was offensive". Of course, there shouldn't really have been a problem lexically since 'niggard' only sounds like 'nigger'. Yet, if there is a concern in that situation, then even if "What is and is not offensive is very, very difficult to nail down", the party that was 'offending' could easily show 'good intent' by saying "I understand your concerns due to the similarity in sounds and I will simply use a synonym that I just looked up such as stingly or miserly". The problem really isn't with PC, it is with the people who are involved and how they choose to get all indignant over it.

There is no need to debate what is offensive when just a little thoughtfulness and courtesy can solve so many things. However, the counter-argument that because you find 'offensive' difficult to nail down, we should consider everything 'acceptable' is far more dangerous (and I'm by no means suggesting that is what you are proposing). Anyway, our issue doesn't hinge on defining what is offensive, so I'll speak no more about it.



Is CPP's humor usually low fruit on the tree? Of course. Often it's just slightly above fart jokes, no doubt.
I don't think this is correct at all. You see, the pimp doesn't actually flatulate on the hoes - if that were the case, the hoes could possibly flatulate back and in this somewhat more equitable though olfactorily stressed situation, who nose how it would turn out.


Who is the butt of the humor, women or CPP? Truly, by ironically speaking so positively of the horrors of prostitution, CPP is the butt.
I think I have already showed you that the humour doesn't work unless you have hoes being abused by a pimp. To suggest that by speaking positively about horrors makes the speaker the butt of the humour really requires quite the connoisseur. However, let's try another little exercise. Let's consider these horrors of prostitution, however, with a little unpleasant twist. Let's have our illustrious CPP speak equally positively about the hoes we have come so fondly to love and disrespect, but let's make all of them in his stable 12 year old females.

Is CPP still the butt? How come nothing is funny anymore? So this isn't funny and CPP is no longer a butt, but give the fillies a few years and everything works out just fine, right? I think not.

I was engaged in a conversation with a 12 year old female a few months ago, who was angry at her 13 year old friend who had called her a $2 ho. Now she said that he was just being stupid and like that to girls, but that he didn't really mean it (you know, that 'intent' thing). So I asked her why she let him get away with it? She said that it was really just a joke anyway and it was fine because she really wasn't a $2 ho (that's the bit about no one sees this as reality so they won't become pimps). But I said, 'ho' is a derogatory term for women - why would you allow your friend to talk about any woman that way? The answer came back, "Oh I wouldn't allow anyone to put down hoes, one of my best friends is one." So, do you think that a little consciousness raising may be in order? Or should this young lady attend the CPP school of elegance?


Is the solution to make all forums suitable for 8 years or older? Hmm... I don't think so. I think parents have a responsibility to monitor the activities of their child. There are far worse things which are far more easily available and more mainstream on the web
Because there are far worse things on the web, doesn't mean we have to compete with the rest of the internet. Since you don't seem to think we should make all forums suitable for 8 year olds and parents shouldn't shirk their responsibility, should russ implement an adult pass system for RHP? Let's also not be so dramatic with the age - minors are up to 16 yrs old. Surely, we adults can find depth and meaning in forum life and still maintain a sufficient degree of restraint so as not to damage anyone's innocent ears.

It might do the adults a lot of good too. On more than one occasion has a minor, displayed far better courtesy and civilized behaviour than those who seem to have a difficult time acting their greater years. Perhaps, some restraint on part of some of the less disciplined elders here who treat this place as their private outhouse, would be of benefit to all of us.

But, have there been people who have left in protest of Cribs' persona? I doubt it. And if they have, I am sure there are people equally turned off by RBHill's Christiano-centric salvation material as well.
I haven't a clue what the point of all this is. We are not talking about who leaves in protest or who stays. This is surely not a matter of popularity.


The TOS, and perhaps you, works off of the assumption that all vulgarity or obscenity is always objectional.
Objectional can be rather subjectional, right? So do we want to talk about this for weeks? The TOS provides a set of guidelines and pretty clear ones too. It might not go into details, but it is fairly straightforward. It just tells us to behave ourselves. This is really not such a difficult idea.


I am working off of the assumption ...
I hope I have given you some encouragement to rethink your assumption and its ramifications. Whether CPP=Cribs is completely irrelevant, since we can never tell and it really isn't our business anyway. What is our business is maintaining a civilized, healthy atmosphere on this site so that all its members can feel safe on the forums, so that they don't get bullied, so that they don't have to witness bullying fictional or otherwise, so that they do not have to suffer indignities because of their race, colour or sex.

I would hope that since you are not "advocating, ever, the oppression of any individual or groups of individuals" and are "a big fan of sensitivity" and have even thrown some compassion Cribs' way, that you would use your considerable skill and argumentative talents to pull for those who are oppressed rather than fabricate something illusory in the name of parody. (If you are still unconvinced, I will fabricate a parody for you, and you can tell me how effective it is.)

The thread on Pros of Nazism was just deleted yesterday. The creator of the thread did something far more innocent than CPP. He wasn't trying to be funny. He wasn't trying to make a parody of himself. He was simply trying to argue for arguments sake - he didn't mean any harm. Before the thread was deleted, one of the mods wrote this:

"I can understand why you'd want to take in the massive challenge of defending the undefendable as an intelectual excersize but some things are sometimes best left alone"

It was a gentle way to tell a 15 year old, that it is not the arguing that is important, but the argument.

If your argument really distills into 'the CPP is making a butt of himself so that we can be enlightened through his portrayal of being an idiot', then I really hope you consider that all this goes well beyond "opinion and taste".

Have you ever been hurt and the place tries to heal a bit, and you just pull the scar off of it over and over again.
Rosa Parks on Prejudice

Prejudice, be it against blacks, jews, the disabled, or women runs deeper than the eye wants to see, so the mind tries to pretend it is not there. But it cannot escape the vigilence of the heart.

In friendship,
prad

Pradtf,
There are so very many issues in your tripartite thread that deserve attention and, as because I am 1) a slow thinker, 2) one who struggles to try to write clearly and precisely (and doesn't always suceed), and 3) prone to prolixity, I am not sure that I can possibly tackle all of the essential differences from your and my positions, even over many posts over many days. The concerns you raise are multipronged and, so, I may not be able to get to all of them before an answer raises more questions. And so on. I will do my best to keep up, but assume that if I don't, it's not because I haven't either thought about what you have said or, worse, don't care.

pradtf wrote:
The issue really has very little to do with 'offensive' or 'intent'...I don't think the abuse and exploitation of women is a joke at all regardless of intent.

I can't agree with this, and I will explain why below.

I am going to take for granted that we agree that, on the grand scale of things, the word "nigger" gets people more excited that "ho."

Now, I am going to relate to you two very specific scenes which are very powerful to me. The first comes from Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain (a book once banned because of its controversial story and use of language). For those reading the post that might not know the story, a very very brief summary: Huckleberry (Huck) Finn, living in southern US during a time when slavery was legal, is a boy with deep-seeded prejudice towards black people. He's not mean spirited or hateful, he was just taught that black people aren't really people, and as such behaves in accordance with that belief. The story centers around Huck's and a runaway slave Jim's journies together. However, the adventures they have are just a vehicle for getting race issue on the table and, especially, getting Huck to reevaluate his deep-seeded assumptions about blacks.

In this scene (Chapter 15), Huck has played a trick on Jim that causes the former to believe that Huck is dead. Jim is devistated. However, Huck "magically" reappears and convinces Jim that it was all a dream, which Jim begins to interpret. After a great deal of deliberation and concern, Huck points to something on the raft that indicates that it was not a dream but a trick he had played. Jim responds with some of the most powerful words in literature:

"'When I got all wore out wid work, en wid de callin’ for you, en went to sleep, my heart wuz mos’ broke bekase you wuz los’, en I didn’ k’yer no’ mo’ what become er me en de raf’.  En when I wake up en fine you back agin, all safe en soun’, de tears come, en I could a got down on my knees en kiss yo’ foot, I’s so thankful.  En all you wuz thinkin’ ’bout wuz how you could make a fool uv ole Jim wid a lie.  Dat truck dah is trash; en trash is what people is dat puts dirt on de head er dey fren’s en makes ’em ashamed.'"

Continuing from Chapter 15:
"(from Huck's perspective): Then he [Jim] got up slow and walked to the wigwam, and went in there without saying anything but that.  But that was enough.  It made me feel so mean I could almost kissed his foot to get him to take it back.

"It was fifteen minutes before I could work myself up to go and humble myself to a nigger; but I done it, and I warn’t ever sorry for it afterwards, neither.  I didn’t do him no more mean tricks, and I wouldn’t done that one if I’d a knowed it would make him feel that way."

Suffice it to say that, among the many things I have read, this passage has remained with me and the emotion it elicits nearly brings me to tears. Two things, however, make this passage especially relevant for this discussion. First, Twain uses a very specific vernacular for Jim (here and throughout the book), one based on his careful study of language. All things being equal, if a black man were depicted as speaking in this fashion, it would be demeaning, because it suggests that Jim, being black, is stupid. However, reading this in context (which I've tried to provide), we realize that it is in fact very powerful. Second, when Huck says that he "humbled himself to a nigger," we make note of two things. First, Huck is beginning to recognize Jim's humanity and second, is still carrying the baggage of prejudice. This very complicated sentence would be utterly compromised without the use of the very charged word.

My second example comes from the movie American History X. In it Derek (Ed Norton) is raised in a home wherein his father has substantial racial prejudice. The father is not a member of the KKK, but certainly thinks of black folk as second-class citizens. As the story unfolds, Derek's father is killed in a black neighborhood while putting out a fire. The foundation already set, Derek's learned racism combined with this catalyst sends him over the edge with hate. In short, he becomes the essential leader of a violent skinhead group that basically hates any non-white. One night, while Derek is home, three black men break into Derek's car. Derek pulls out a gun and kills one, the other he shoots and incapacitiates (the third gets away). When Derek sees the helpless one flailing around on the ground, blinded by his anger and hate, he crushes the head of the man with his boot. As a result, he was imprisoned on manslaughter charges.

Ok, the scene is now set (it's in scene 20 on the DVD). While in prison, he gets assigned to laundry duty with a black man named Lamont. Lamont tries opening up with crude humor, then with personal experience (working in the kitchen). Derek, in superiority mode, just stares him down, not saying a word, trying to be intimidating. Lamont, incorrigible, simply says that he knows Derek's type, and delivers I think the single most powerful line in the movie (and, in fact, it represents the turning point for Derek):

"But let me tell you somthin', man: You betta watch yo ass, because, in the joint, you the nigger, not me."

(BTW, the none online scripts I found are even close to the movie's text. Not even close. If the movie had been made with the ones I found, it would have been half as powerful.)

Now, I think that we can agree without dispute the use of nigger, locally, in both of these examples is offensive. In the voices of both chacters, the use of the word reveals an explicit understanding of qualitative difference amonst races, although the latter uses the term ironically. Yet, in both cases, the presentation of the global idea would be utterly compromised by the use of a gentler term. In both cases, these moments represent the turning point for both protagonists. As I understand it, the context, (and this is a matter of opinion) determines that the local offensiveness is overridden by the overarching global message of tolerance. Is it a bitter pill to swallow? Sure. I wouldn't be able to count how many times nigger is used in either the book or the movie. But the stories are so powerful and so positive, that it doesn't matter. Indeed, the stories would not have the power to move people if they themselves used gentler terms. Being offended is often the first step in making profound realizations.

Now, you took a handful of CPP's quotations and replaced "ho" with horse, coolie, or injun. You demonstated that it is not funny with those words. I am not sure I followed why this point was made. Take for example either Huck Finn or American History X. If one would replace everytime the word nigger was used and replaced it with any other term, neither would make any sense. Neither would be powerful. Neither would command the attention and reflection that both deservedly get.

Now, some people would rather not watch these movies or find them too offensive to glean meaning. That's opinion, and I respect it. I, however, maintain that they are some of the most powerful sorts of stories that can be made and both stories had profound impacts on me and my views. That's opinion.

On a related note:
pradtf wrote:
Now let's deal with your comments about the PC movement. I agree that it is absurd that "thousands of tax dollars were literally flushed down the toilet as people argued whether or not 'niggardly' was offensive". Of course, there shouldn't really have been a problem lexically since 'niggard' only sounds like 'nigger'. Yet, if there is a concern in that situation, then even if "What is and is not offensive is very, very difficult to nail down", the party that was 'offending' could easily show 'good intent' by saying "I understand your concerns due to the similarity in sounds and I will simply use a synonym that I just looked up such as stingly or miserly". The problem really isn't with PC, it is with the people who are involved and how they choose to get all indignant over it.

I can't agree with this, at all. If there is a concern in a situation that arises out of having ignorance or supersensitivity (as someone who would find niggardly offensive must have), I can't abide with the decision to use another word. I can find NO justification for offense in this case. Now, the fact that someone initially reacted with concern about hearing niggardly doesn't bother me; he did so in ignorance. However, being educated to the fact, he should be able to use reason and transcend his irritation and recongize in his mind that the word carries with it no offense. I cannot justify someone's indignity after being educated. If that were so, I would be desparately offended everytime I saw a "Spic-and-Span" commerical, or advertisements for "Beaver College." It's supersenstivie, unfounded in reason and I can give it no credence. So, if we disagree here, I respect your right to have opinions. (cont.)

continued from above.

Allow me to bring back Archie Bunker. If you are familiar with the show, you know that Archie uses epithets for Jews, Hispanics, Blacks and women frequently (although I don't believe they ever went so far as say "nigger;" the audience wasn't ready). Now, there is no doubt whatsoever that Archie's language is offensive and hateful. If I heard someone say things like that on the street, I'd be outraged. However, context, for me, plays a key role. We look at Archie and we know that he is uneducated, bigotted, and spiteful. For example, we see, even in early episodes, Archie expressing incredulity about blacks going to college while even he himself is very poorly educated. We see him refusing to let a priest Baptize his grandson (whom the parents don't want Baptized anyway) because that priest is Asian. We see him chiding his own son-in-law about his liberal protesting, even when Archie is defending oppression. And he has gone as far to say (I believe several times) that baseball was ruined when Jackie Robinson was allowed to join the National Baseball League.

These are all outrageously offensive things. But did we benefit from them richly? I did. Many did. Many people didn't like the show BECAUSE it challenged people. And other people couldn't get past the words like "spade" and "wetback." I'm truly sorry that they couldn't, because the show and a profound impact on the way I viewed the world.

One last example: Andy Sipowicz (Dennis Franz) from NYPD Blue. Now admittedly the show isn't what it used to be, but here is a perfect example of a tortured individual: racist alcoholic cop (with a GUN and a BADGE!) who learned both from his bigotted alcoholic parent who was killed by a black man. Of all the scariest sorts of situations, this ranks pretty high on my list. The first half dozen seasons especially featured Sipowicz coming to grips with both his drinking and bigotry. He was never funny in these circumstances, he was always offensive. Many people objected to the show because it featured him driving intoxicated or being bigotted (and, yes, he did use the word nigger at least once). But in so doing, situations and other characters educated him, sometimes trial by fire, other times through argument, other times by means of discussion. In this way, Andy, like Huck and Derek above, benefit as characters, and we benefit as an audience. With Archie and, I argue, with CPP, we benefit by being able to see the explicit hypocrisy, irony, and ridiculousness of their comments in light of their circumstances.

Someone who turned on the television for just a moment and heard Archie complaining about "spades" moving into his neighborhood might get a rush of anger and indignation, just as someone reading one of CPP's posts. Someone who takes the time to watch an episode or two will discern what is going on, and so, too, I believe that reading Cribs' other non-CPP posts will enlighten others.

Is Cribs perfect? No. Is he free from prejudice? No. Does he sometimes get angry and not consider his words? Of course. But so have I, you or Carroll O'Connor. Just because O'Connor once yelled at a black person doesn't mean he thinks as Archie does. Finding a time when Cribs was less than charitable, or chose his words poorly and using that to substantiate that CPP might have more to do with Cribs than meets the eye does not compel me. I'd just as soon think of Twain as a racist.

Is CPP's depth of insight and profound message on the level of Twain's, David McKenna's and Tony Kaye's (writer and director of American History X, respectively), Norman Lear's (All in the Family head writer), and Stephen Bochco's (NYPD Blue head writer and producer, for the early episodes)? No. Is it poorly done (that is, is it unclear that he CPP's attitudes are distinct from Cribs)? No, I believe I can tell the difference.

Lastly, and perhaps this should be formed into a new post:
pradtf wrote:
Because there are far worse things on the web, doesn't mean we have to compete with the rest of the internet... (snipped for space)

There are people who might find either of our last posts offensive. Certainly, there are many ideas that we have both expressed that have been charged with a history of understanding abuse. We both have used words that in other contexts would be outrageously offensive.

The fact is, I wouldn't want my child reading this post either, as positive as I feel I have been, or yours either, as positive as you tried to be. Is this an "Adult Site" (ahem Red Hot Pawn)? No. But many of the ideas are beyond the ken of many younger folk and, as such, are inappropriate for them. There need not be anything "offensive" for a parent to decide that their child shouldn't see something.

I am sure that I will not be posting in such a capacity for the next three days, so if I can clarify anything else, please be patient. I've hardly made any moves and, isn't that really what this site is about? 🙂

Nemesio

A short post, I hope.

Originally posted by imvegan
A woman should be free to wear what she wants and feels comfortable with.

To be clear, let me say to this: Absolutely.

I am assuming, of course, that we are keeping this in the bounds of normalcy, though. I am taking for granted that you don't advocate a woman walking into Chucky Cheese wearing only a thong and a pair of pasties. In public situations, certainly we can agree on a modicum of decency without having to define it. You called this protocol later. I just want to be sure we're on the same page.

However, you wrote the following and I want to be clear about something:
Originally posted by imvegan
If she chooses to wear a short skirt and flimsy top (because she feels good, and not because there is any pressure to do so) why shouldn't she? If she chooses to "show cleavage" why shouldn't she? The problem is not with her for doing so, the problem is only with those who see her in a negative light because of it or who make assumptions or have expectations about her willingness to have sex because of it.

In principle I say: Absolutely, of course (as above).

However, we must be ever conscious of something that you wrote in an earlier post.

Originally posted by imvegan
Attitudes towards women (e.g. objectifying them) are so ingrained that things like what you are questioning are completely accepted to the point where people think it is ridiculous it is even questioned....Women, throughout history have been treated like property and as such objects for possession. That is why these attitudes are insidious …. Good people do not even recognize them in our everyday lives.

I have known women, wonderful people, who have had low self image. In an effort to make themselves feel better, they wear sexy clothing, largely for the crude attention they receive from men. In their mind, this attention is better than no attention. When asked, they say "It's my choice."

Now, I am not saying we should forbid women from doing this, nor am I saying that all women who wear skimpy clothing have poor self image or like to be objectified. But my experience and intuition tells me that there is a reasonably observable correlaton between wearing skimpy clothing and how they might feel about themselves being objectified; and based on your earlier post I think you might see that, too.

It's important to state these things because I don't think we are at a point where we can simply assume that all women wearing skimpy clothing are fully liberated from the very insidious and largely subconscious attitudes that lead towards their being unjustly discriminated against. These attitudes are, in many cases, just a firmly imbedded in the minds of the female as they are in the male.

That's not to say that we should not strive to inform and educate such that both males and females don't end up objectified or objectifying (respectively); I'm simply warning about how two people who might say "It's my choice to wear this skimpy outfit" (and thus appear to have the same motivation) might have totally different subconscious reasons for it.

An interesting sidebar:
When we talk about ingrained social attitudes about a person's beauty, we are often making the leap that these things are solely learned; that is, Dad taught Junior that a woman should have plump breasts, a small butt, etc. etc.. There are some very interesting psycological studies that demonstrate that it is in no small part biological/natural. Babies looking at a series of faces, some of which are attractive, some of which are unattractive and some of which are average, show different reactions. They look longest at the beautiful faces, shortest at the ugly ones. In these studies, beauty was gauged on a variety of factors, including the symmetry and proportion of various parts of the face relative to the whole. We are the products of evolution, and as such, we did the same sorts of things that every other animal does in an effort to get our seed propogated. John Cleese, in a rather fine series of shows called "The Human Face" (from 2001) touched on many of these issues, including the role of the face in sexuality.

Nemesio