[PEN-L:10993] Re: fascism&freespeech3

["Karl Carlile" <joseph@xxxxxxxxx>]

KARL: Tut, tut, tut,....Here comes the morality brigade. Hmmmm a
posting from Saint Michael the sexist free being. Isn't curious I
canot get him to discuss sub-Saharan Africa. And we all know the
plight o fthe masses there. I canno tget him to discuss the
significance of the Russian revolution. And we all know its
significancen in terms of today generation. I cannot get him to
discuss the globalisation question. ANd we all kno its significance
for workers in terms of posisble increased exploitation and even
unemployment. But he is as quick as ligthening when it comes to what
one would consider a mild sexist comment. Clearly for Saint Michael
this putative mild transgression of far greater signficance than
these other matters.

I never said my remark or remarks were sexist O Holy One please tell
me how it or they are. I CHALLENGE YOU TO EXPLAIN HOW IT OR THEY ARE.
Ha, ha, ha,.....big bad boy.
---------------

On 22 Jun 97 at 21:16, Michael Eisenscher wrote:

Date:          Sun, 22 Jun 1997 21:16:28 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-to:      pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From:          Michael Eisenscher <meisenscher@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To:            Multiple recipients of list <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:       [PEN-L:10988] Re: fascism&freespeech3

At 04:05 PM 6/22/97 -0700, Karl Carlile wrote:
[SNIP]
>
>KARL: Surely the profession of the revolutionary is not the
>profession of the private detective. Why do you want to know where
>the fascist are at all times? Is it to gaze at them all the more,
>particularly if they are of female gender (forgive the possibly
>implicit sexism here. I just couldn't resist it Andy.)
[SNIP]

Sorry, Karl, but as a big "revolutionary" you don't get off so easily
with what is not "implicit" but explicit sexism, which you then
proceed to compound by using the sexist reference again.

For someone who quick to lecture on the standards of a true
revolutionary, you are surely too "flexible" in excusing your own
transgressions. Apologizing for what you obviously recognize to be an
offensive reference and then going on to use it again just does not
cut it.  One does not even have to be a revolutionary to find this
objectionable, but surely someone who claims to be one should know the
difference.  Acknowledging that what you say might be offensive does
not give you license to say it again.

Can you see that telling a "possibly" racist joke and following it
with another does not make it less racist?  If so, how is your sexism
any different?

In solidarity,
Michael







                          Yours etc.,
                                     Karl