barbie: "oh skipper, did you date that lifeguard finally? he looks so doable."
skipper: "oh golly barbie, he only looks doable. i swear on my pink mansion that he wasn't any bigger than the battery in my vibrator.
barbie: "oh noes! that's the giant suckage skipper..."
skipper: "not hardly, barbie girl. not hardly. which made sucking him off greeeeeeeeeat."
barbie: lol lol lol skipper. you always see twice intender, is that what it is?"
skipper: "you mean 'double entendre'?"
barbie: "yeah, that's it. you always see double intender in everything i say. i don't know, i just stick with ken."
skipper: "i know barbie. you have it made. ken doesn't have anything down there, just a great hard knobbish lump."
barbie: "tee hee. skipper. you know my secret: that knobby lump, all bare as can be. i just rub and slide all over it. and the best part? when I'm all done with ken, i can stick him in a shoebox and hop in my Geo Tracker."
skipper: lol. wanna go for a ride barbie? four on the floor. vroom. vroom.
i'll just post angela m's words, posted here in 1999, discussing the uses and abuses of charges of sexist and racist speech.
banalize it baby, banalize it.
<quote>
Sure, one option would be to remove the sense of racism and sexism from speech acts entirely, to make it refer only to institutional, structural, or whatever other formulation one likes that would separate people from structures. And, for most occasions, i'm inclined to think that's quite a good strategy.
Which is perhaps why Jim H and I, despite what I'll say below, have similar responses to the rhetorical and political focus of much of the left on extreme manifestations of racism, hate speech legislation, etc. I think it diverts attention from those politics and practices which will never be signalled with racist and sexist epithets but are nonetheless more dangerous, which provide the context for the ubiquity of racism and sexism....
But that, unfortunately though interestingly, is just a (philosophical) liberalism in reverse: that reality can be distinguished from words and it is unaffected by them especially when it comes to the reality of something like an e-list, where the whole space is excessively worded. The problem with pursuing Zizek into censorious mode (censoring the charge(s of sexism and racism themselves) in the abstract) is, as Bitch says, that it regards racism and sexism as existing entirely within the realm of speech acts.
But, speech acts is all we do here (in cyberspace), which has the effect of making racism and sexism, as well as a discussion of them, more pronounced and more troubling. If I write:
"no one, least of all those of us who think these are not a matter of personal whim, would deny that they are racist or sexist"
then this should have been a fairly clear gesture toward those who here have both claimed that racism and sexism are not a matter of intentional decision (that it consists of structures which exceed any of our intentions) and who, simultaneously, respond to claims that they are being (in this instance) sexist with nothing other than denial.
That is, such a denial from this perspective is absurd. And what it shows clearly is that those who are often most keen to dispense their judgements on others are absolutely unwilling to countenance such implications in regard to themselves, thus flying in the face of what they simultaneously assert about the ubiquity of racism and sexism.
And it's this initial judgement that I would say yes, is indeed about enjoyment: that is, the enjoyment of distinction, superiority, the fantasy of being outside fantasy
A fantasy held onto at all cost, including a refusal to deal at all with what they claim they are most concerned with: racism, sexism, etc.
I happen to think there is always space for that discussion and debate, and I would much prefer it if it was banalised by a recognition that racism and sexism permeates what we do here than to shift it into the realm of rhetorical insult (as if it is some kind of willful malevolence), which is largely and unfortunately where it remains now. And, it's as insult that it becomes enjoyment and the basis for identification, both for those who do the calling and those who are called. That is, there should always be a debate and discussion on whether or not some comment or perspective is racist.
What happens more often than not however is that discussion is halted, usually at the line of 'if a woman says x is sexist then it is true'; this is all too troubling so we should stop now; 'you are being racist when you say x'; 'you are/you aren't'; etc
What would it hurt other than my leftist pride if someone said I was being racist? I'll ask for evidence and I will most likely debate it, but it doesn't destroy my sense of self. Why should it? What do I stand to lose other than my fantasy of being outside ideology?"
http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)