Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 15:27:39 +0100 (MET)
Subject: Re: M-G: Engels on ancient Greece & split between sexes


On 02.01, Justin S. wrote:

>I really wasn't going to follow this up, but this is getting absurd.
>Siddharth, you're usually sensible and I expected better from you.

Not sufficienly fanatically for "gloom"ness etc being good, huh?

>First, in my anger in reply to Martens I forget to address his absurd
>remark that gay rights movements are somehow about splitting men from
>women. Listen, chum, the unity between men and women that's politically
>necesasry has nothing to do with pairing up each girl with one boy on a
>one-one basis for sexual intercourse.

I never said "one-one basis". And, as I wrote in another posting,
there's much more to it that ("just") the sex act too.

>It has to do with identification of
>common interests, including the interests in free sexual choice and the
>interests in being free from idiotic and hateful bigotry about other
>people's sexual preferences, with political unity against common
>oppressors, include homophobic reactionaries of the rigt and the so-called
>left.
>
>Gay men don't hate and fear women because they're gay; they're not gay
>becausde they hate and fear women; lesbians don't hae and fae men because
>they're lesbian and they're not lesbians because they hate and fear men.

Oh no?

>Gays and lesbians are what thery are because they are sexuallt attracted
>to members of the same sex. In fact, it's not my experience, and I do not
>believe it's true, that gays and lesbians hate and fear the opposite sex
>at all. 

>From what (not all that mucg) I've seen, heard or read of people who 
define themselves in that manner, precisly a deep fear and/or
disgust is evident.

>They just don't want to sleep with it. 
>In terms of political
>unity, solidarity between men and women, gays, lesbians and straightss, is
>both possible and often--when straights can overcome their irrational
>animus, actual. 
>
>Siddhath, comrade, please:
>
>> As regards gay movements, it is true from the evidence that such
>> questions have become important in the first world (but not in the
>> third at present) and will have to be addressed. One should, of course,
>> adopt a critical attitude, but at the same time one should be extremely
>> careful of *not even appear* to be siding with the ruling class and
>> the fundamentalist reactionaries and associated fascists who want to
>> oppress gay people. 
>
>This is fine. A "critical" attitude is OK insofar as gat and lesbian
>movements often are narrowly limited to identity politics and fraught with
>bourgeois illusions. But the following is not:
>
>The causes of homosexuality (genetic, environmental)
>> and whether or not it is a "perversion" is a *separate* issue. This
>> distinction should be kept in mind.
>
>We cannot even entertain the idea that homosexuality might be a
>"perversion": this is like entertaining the idea that Blacks might
>possibly be inferior and unworthy of intercourse with whites.

This shows that unfortunately, you're *very fanatical* on this
issue, Justin. (On other points, you seem to me to be a quite
reasonable and fair person.) "Cannot even entertain the idea"!

> In class society, supporting an
>> *oppresed* group in their fight for attaining basic rights (non-
>> discrimination in jobs, housing, education, etc.), albeit bourgeois,
>> is the proper duty
>
>This is fine.
>
> and it does not mean that one encourages the
>> practice of that particular group.
>
>But what is this? What's not to encourage? Can Marxists have something
>against love? Or even against harmless fun? I say: let's encourage this
>activity. 

"Love", that's a complicated matter on which there's much bourgeois
propaganda. I shall not try to sort these thing out just now.
"This activity", homosexual acts, aren't all that harmful. But -
like the acts of those necrophiles and bestials whom *you*, acording
to your own terminology, are advocating the discrimination of - they
are a bad substiute for normal sex, which precisely is the hate
object of that bourgeois "queer propaganda" campaign you're supporting.


This doesn't mean that those not so inclined have to participate
>in it. But if people find love or even pleasure in the company of others,
>this is wholly positive.
>
> The decision of whether such a group
>> exists and also its oppression, will, of course, have to be made on
>> empirical evidence.
>
>Is there any question that gays and lesbians exist? Or that they are
>oppressed? Dear God, save us from our blindness. 

There precisely *is* such a question. Instead of talking of various
ways of thinking and acting, things that can change too, the propaganda 
is very careful about *putting labels* on peple: That one *is* a "gloom",
this one *is* a "lesbo". In some respects, the terms are not wrong,
since certain (very few, even in the USA etc) people do define
themnselves as such. But they *distract from the causes* and work in
the direction of *precluding a change*.

>> Once again, this campaign for gay marriages is not a conspiracy of the
>> bourgeoise to split men from women. There is a division among them
>> on how to address this issue.
>
>And if there were not, what would that show? Suppose the bourgeoisie were
>united around gay marriage as it is around heterosexual marriage. Does
>bourgeois support for heterosexuality raise doubts abouts its value?
>Perhaps it is a plot to split boys who love boys and girls who love girls
>from each other. (Actually, there may be something to that.) 
>
>--Justin

Upside-down, Justin, upside-down!

Rolf M.



     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---