Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 22:58:13 +1100
From: Rob Schaap <rws-AT-comserver.canberra.edu.au>
Subject: Re: M-TH: Toward the Abolition of Heterosexuality?


>Hi Sheila:
>>I'm sorry, can someone explain to me in very simple terms how
>>freedom from the oppression of pregnancy, etc. (which certainly
>>is much to be desired!) has to do with abolition of heterosexuality?

G'day Sheila,

I'm not saying Yoshie hasn't done a reasonable job of representing my
views, but a couple of clarifiers, if I may.  I do not propose to abolish
heterosexuality.  Indeed, I think it a wondrous phenomenon.  Given that
there are boys and girls, I suspect the interdependence wrought  by it is
good for society as a whole, for a start.  I merely argue that freedom
should not be conceptualised as the me-generation might want to.  Freedom
is something we would possess in a material world, which affords material
scope and material constraints.  Technology (eg abortion techniques) can
transform such relations, but always does so in a social setting.  Just as
steam power could conceivably have helped us in our project to make each of
us more free, it could also be employed to bring in a whole new mode of
oppression (most humans more the means to the ends of the other few than
ever).  It all depends on what society thinks a fair thing at the time, I
suppose.

>>As I see it, abolition of the oppression of pregnancies would
>>separate sexual relationships from procreation  - whether people
>>are homosexual, heterosexual or asexual would be irrelevant, yes?

To a species like us, continually on heat as we are, the separation of
pregnancies from coitus is a most attractive prospect.  The question I'm
asking is, what price are we prepared to pay to make but one of a
heterosexual couple's recreational/bonding options free of but one of its
possible consequences?  If we are to say the unborn are not people, let us
know we are saying it for a better reason than the 'zipless fuck'.

>>Am I missing something here?  The advanced vocabularies used
>>on these Marxist lists frequently confuse me, so I wouldn't be
>>surprised if I've entirely missed the point of what's being
>>suggested in this thread.  Thanx.

I miss people's points all the time; I'm just a more shameless wanker than
you are, that's all.  Thaxis is the most forgiving congregation in the
Marxism space, I think.  That's why I'm here anyway.

>I wrote that "abolition of heterosexuality" post in opposition to the idea
>that Rob Schaap advanced. Rob thinks that while you can't oppose abortion
>under capitalism because capitalism oppresses women by assigning most
>child-rearing duties to women,

... and many women do not have effective ownership/control of their wombs ...

>abortion must be made illegal in a future
>socialist society of his imagination. Rob thinks that unwanted pregnancy in
>itself is not much of an oppression

... on the contrary, I'm a dad, and sufficiently capable of empathy to be
convinced it is a most demanding, inhibiting and, at times, painful
experience. I'll never know first hand, but the words aren't completely
empty ...

>to justify the "killing of a fetus"
>because he thinks a fetus is a person.

Maybe it's my heart that tells me it is, but my head tells me this crucial
proposition is tenable.  Communication between foetus and the external
world (and mum, who inhabits both spaces) is demonstrable.  You don';t have
to go as far as those rich Californians who educate their foetus from
conception to give 'em an edge over the as yet idle competition, but you
take my point - we are discussing sentience of a sort.  In the terms of
your person-as-necessarily-social-being argument (and, btw, I certainly
think this a marxian proposition), I'm asking: is this *human*
communication?  Clearly, the human foetus is the only foetus who has the
capacity to become social in your sense, but I'm wondering if a bit of
thinking about this might help us determine if this is a case of immanence
or merely one of potential (or imminence, if you like).

>I disagree. Unwanted pregnancy is a physical punishment.

Well, we always have the technology to terminate the pregnancy, so to
continue the pregnancy is a conscious act on the society's part.  Does it
follow that it is a punishment?  I'm quite sure I'm not talking about
punishment.

>So I wrote in that post to make sure Rob will understand that in a society
>which subscribes to the idea that a fetus is a person while upholding
>gender equality as Rob would like--Rob thinks we can have gender equality
>even when abortion is criminal--the only possible solution is to abolish
>heterosexuality as we have known it,

Yeah, well, heterosexuality as we know it could do with a bit of work ...

>by organizing sexual practices in such
>a way that penile-vaginal penetration only occurs when both partners want a
>baby.

... or mum (or mum and dad, depending on the relation) is/are prepared to
let the fates decide (the fates here would have a contraceptive or two with
which to reckon).

>I think that the abolition of heterosexuality is a good idea,

That's a bit strong, isn't it?

>but I also
>think it is utopian to imagine that people will change their sexual
>practices of their own accord immediately after the abolition of the
>private ownership of the means of production.

Absolutely.  I'm merely discussing a possible component of the
moral/ethical awareness and attitude that would inform any social
transformation.  I've opined before that this is important stuff to think
on, as it will have a (often hidden) hand in shaping that transformation.

>Besides, I believe that some
>people might want to practice penil-vaginal penetration even when they
>don't want kids. So I think Rob is wrong to think that we can have gender
>equality while criminalizing abortion.

If I (well, anybody/anything) can't convince people that the foetus is a
person, I could hardly criminalise abortion could I?  That would not be
very socialist of me, and it would not be possible to impose unwanted laws
in the ideal world I've constructed for this chat.  To the degree I was
talking about a 'law', I was betraying my quasi-Kantian take on the word
(see my earlier would-be philosophical take on this).

>The above basically sums up my thought on the matter.

And now mine too.  And I really have bugger-all else to say - other than
sexist selective abortion is the same as all abortion under patriarchal
capitalism.  The responsibility does not lie with the mother.  If a son
affords long-term security and a daughter imposes possible poverty, then
your society is fucked, and it's fucking you every bit as much as it fuck's
the foetus.

Cheers,
Rob.


************************************************************************

Rob Schaap, Lecturer in Communication, University of Canberra, Australia.

Phone:  02-6201 2194  (BH)
Fax:    02-6201 5119

************************************************************************

'It is questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet made have
lightened the day's toil of any human being.'    (John Stuart Mill)

"The separation of public works from the state, and their migration
into the domain of the works undertaken by capital itself, indicates
the degree to which the real community has constituted itself in
the form of capital."                                    (Karl Marx)

************************************************************************




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