What a swell party this isn't

[serene]

Scene: party Saturday night, which I only attended in trophy-wife capacity (cute-poet-chick's college friend's birthday)

Montessori Teacher who looks like Garry Shandling and says things like "We traveled through Egypt, and everyone does laundry by hand. Lots of people earn their living doing laundry for others. It's a social thing for women to do it. So if they had washing machines, it would hurt their economy."

Me, after about an hour of ignoring his idiocy and chuckling lightly at his stupid jokes: "So, you have three teenaged daughters? Wow."

Garry Shandling: "Yeah. I'm the only guy in a house full of girls. So I have to keep remembering to think down to their level."

Me: "Um, excuse me. *Down*?"

GS: "You know what I mean. Guys think on one level, and girls on another."

Me: "Oh. And it's *down* a level? *Down*?"

GS: *sputter* "You know what I mean."

Cute-poet-chick, sotto voce: "Doesn't he realize he's sitting at a table with a bunch of women who are bigger than he is?"

Me, to GS: "Hey, that's right. I could totally kick your ass."

Me, to cute-poet-chick: "Here, honey, hold my jacket."

Grrrrrr.

Comments

[joedecker.livejournal.com]

If a woman tells you that she was treated in a sexist fashion, you have any number of choices of responses. Attempting to set the tone of the dialog or ignoring the fact that she knows when she's encountered sexism and is justifiably angry is one of them. Telling her that she should Just Be Nice and engage the obviously well meaning gentleman to find out *why* he just insulted her is another. Shutting up and realizing that poking at members of the dominant class is qualitatively different from *being* a member of the dominant class and using the identical language is yet another. Three guesses which ones I find dismissable without any qualms at all.

I think you make an understandable mistake when you assume that my only reaction to the original post was disinterest, or whatever. Understandable because it appared to me that their responses were sufficiently obnoxious as to be obviously so, rendering any comment I might make redundant to the opinion of anyone I'd want to even bother considering. Frankly, both of the two louts involved deserved some ass-kicking, and I am glad that you applied it. Thank you.

No, quite frankly, my single complaint was only with your use of derogatory, negative-connoting class-identifiers, whether they be towards dominant or undominant classes, to the extent that the use of those terms is insufficiently surgical in making a precise point, and paint all members of the group you deride. Had I read your message as being derisive towards the individuals alone, I would have said not a single word, simply applauded. But no, you used language and tone (to my ear) which attacked all members of a class. You couldn't call them a lout or a fuckhead, you head to make their fuckheadedness a property of a race and a gender.

That's wrong where I come from.

You piss me off on a pretty regular basis, and I appreciate that. You make me think.

But still, I think you're wrong here. I don't think that sexual or racial epiteths, whether couched in formalisms "ho-mo-sexual" (in that drawn out town) or obscenties ("faggot"), whether directed at a dominant class ("straight") or a victimized one ("bisexual"), are right. It's not the spelling of the word that makes the oppression, its the loading and conjoining of a negative connotation with all members of the group of people that does.

In plain English: I strenuously disavow any association with the opinions of the two people you've painted me as being with, and I object. You paint me with shit, I'm gonna complain.

I doubt there's much more to say, we obviously disagree about this.