Charles Brown wrote:
> When it comes to sex, don't you think that legitimate ,left concerns about
male supremacy can impinge, and therefore men's sex talk must be examined
for sexism ? That's what Carrol is getting at.
I agree sex talk should be examined (whether it comes from men or women), but I do not think that "dick" or "pussy" are obscenities across the board.
Carrol wrote:
> And Brian is a strange person to complain about discussion of demeaning
language, given the large representation of gay-baiting in such language.
I have nothing against the discussions. What do I have something against are blanket condemnations of certain words or terms. Sometimes it is a lot of fun to talk about "dick" and no other word will fit.
> I really thought that all this had been settled by the early '70s at the
latest. I am puzzled that it should be a matter of any debate at all on
a left list.
Thankfully, we have advanced a long way since the 1970's. Much that came from that time was dull, doctrinaire rule making: anti-porn. speech codes, etc., etc.
Language is in a state of constant change. If I use "pussy" or "pitchfork" in a derogatory way, then it is bad. But it is not the words that are the problem, but the way I used them.
> Does anyone seriously wish to contest the proposition that denying
bigots their language does make bigotry more difficult?
But under your formulation, both bigots and non-bigots alike are denied use of certain words. Now, I want the right to talk about my lover's dick. Sometimes I want to brag about it, or revel in it or just compare notes with friends.
I do not want to deny people the right to use words. I want to call into question particular uses/contexts of words which tear at and destroy community.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister