This tentative contribution from a mere observer, following the rule of thumb that when you don't understand the issues, you should take the side that appears to have the nicest people on it. Shame really, because I had always hoped my first repsonse to one of Charles' posts would be on some blindingly brilliant point of Marxist theory, but there you go -- a consequence of only having a little brain. I blame the drugs myself.
dd
>Charles: My recall is that I criticize people for racist arguments or
>supporting racist positions in real world events. I don't think I have
ever >said "you are condescending to ME in a racist way." I respond to
>"condescencions" with condescensions ( whatever exactly that is; my
>terminlogy would be " I respond to disrespect with disrepect." The Aretha
>Franklin rule, r-e-s-p-e-c-t).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
harrummph, he harrumphed.
I can't believe that somebody whose hobby seems to be minute analysis of everything is happy to bring in an utterly unanalysed concept of "r-e-s-p-e-c-t". Well, we can all agree that respect is a good thing, and most of us can hum a few bars of the "Respect" song. But does it really help to conflate {patronising, racist, rude, sexist, pompous} in this way? To me, the use of the word "respect" looks like a way of packing up the "ouch" of a hurtful remark, giving it a name and assuming that the name stands for something. Thus avoiding having to think about what was bad about the remark and whether or not it was justified -- it had to be bad, because it wasn't "respect". It disappoints me to see a sharp theorist descned to the level of a self-help book.
I think Kelley's point was that you were being patronising to her, as a woman. I think everyone can agree that unintentionally sneering is a very present danger in email, and it's my perception that you are more prone to it than many. And if you're being patronising to a woman, you take the risk that she will very understandably assume that you're doing it to her *because* she is a woman. And when that happens, it frankly doesn't make it in my book to say "but I act that way to men too".
(And the name "Chaz" is in no way racist, but that winds you up too.)
>So, on the below, my recall is any disrepect of Kelley is in response to
>some disrespect she has shown me, without trying to figure out whether it
>can be characterized as racist.
Somewhat self-serving?
>
>The stuff about my agreeing with Kelley more than Angela or "slutty humor"
>is off the wall.
I thought it was quite funny, although I doubt it would actually kill kelley to put in a capital letter or two from time to time.
>I didn't "ignore" the claim of sexism. I denied it.
Yes, but just denied it flat, without explanation or apology for having given unintentional offence. When in the history of the world has anyone been allowed to get away with that? Call me Miss Manners and everything, but there you are.
>I am not "condescending" to a lot of people. What I do is give respect if
>I get it. I don't give it if I don't get it.
Hmmm ... your give-it-out/take it ratio is pretty high(low?), though. I always try to read your discussions because it fascinates me how much Marx wrote that wasn't in "History of Economic Thought". But the one thing that is clear from them is that you're as thin-skinned as it's possible to be without actually applying for Australian citizenship.
>Finally, I challenge white males as much as white females. Ask the white
>males if they think I'm easy on them.
This is actually true.
dd
___________________________________________________________________________ _____
---------------------------------------------------------
This email is confidential to the ordinary user of the
e-mail address to which it was addressed. If you are not
the intended recipient, please notify the sender
IMMEDIATELY on (44) 171 638 5858 and delete the message
from all locations in your computer. You should not copy
this email or use it for any purpose, or disclose its
contents to any person : to do so may be unlawful.
Email is an informal method of communication and is
subject to possible data corruption, either accidentally
or on purpose. Flemings is unable to exercise control
over the content of information contained in
transmissions made via the Internet. For these reasons
it will normally be inappropriate to rely on information
contained on email without obtaining written confirmation
of it.
----------------------------------------------------------