File spoon-archives/marxism-thaxis.archive/marxism-thaxis_1998/marxism-thaxis.9803, message 812


Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 01:04:36 -0500
From: malecki-AT-algonet.se (Robert Malecki)
Subject: Re: M-TH: Re: Sex.lib & male supremacy


Charlie in reply to M..

>   malgosia,
>
>    Is your position have no presumption about any group, judge them all 
individually ?  
>     As to what exactly we should respect, the problem arises in the 
preexisting condition of male supremacy and misogyny.  Do you have problem 
with the notion that those suffering from misogyny don't just hate or 
whatever women one at a time ? It's not that they prefer squirrels to women. 
Actually , some of them prefer men to women; they are male supremacists.
>     Maybe I'm overstating it. How about just don't hate women in general. 
Is that clear exactly what I am proposing they shouldn't hate ?
>
>    Then take it another step, respect what you used to hate, male 
chauvinist ? Then you will be a man , not a pig (just kidding).
>     One reason for stating it affirmatively and emphatically (love, 
respect) is affirmative action: to more forcefully wipe out the preexisting 
condition which is hating or disliking women as a group.
>       As to the words "respect and love" women  I'm not sure what a 
rebours is . In a contorted way ? I've been thinking this way for a while 
and I have not come across a contorted logical path in it to just another 
man trickbag or patenalism. But I'm not saying that is conclusive. I 
sincerely, empirically and rigorously examine it. This discussion and 
critique furthers that.
>
>        I think you are saying it is veiled and slick paternalism, and that 
makes you want to kill. Hey, o.k., , I don't like women as a group (I do NOT 
DISlike them as a group, either).  I even like you as an individual a 
little, and I have never sensed your physical being .
>
>        I know damn well that many or most women have a resentment against 
being oppressed by male chauvinism. Who else can that resentment be taken 
out on but individual men but because they are part of men in general ? 
There is no PATRIARCH individual for them to hate. 
>      So, my solution is I presume for women in general, of course, 
reserving the right to rebut in individual cases. And I fight for all men to 
reverse the current generally dominating attitude which is male supremacy 
This attitude is in individual men. I fight that they  reverse their current 
presumption against to a presumption for women. 
>     Hey,do you see the self-interest ?  No trick. What's good for the 
goose, is good for the gander, one of which I am. For women to give up their 
JUSTIFIABLE resentment against men in general for misogyny in general, men 
have to make a big move, an apology, a surrender in the battle of the sexes. 
Something. Clearly, men have to make the first move of reversing male supremacy.
>
>     What do you say should be men's attitude about women in general ? Case 
by case basis ?
>
>      Although, I have studied semiotics, structuralism and postmodernism, 
I am not fully with absolute social constructionism of reality. My approach 
is species-being, which is a "dialectical" unity of culture (symbols,systems 
of representation, social construction) and nature (instinct and natural 
needs). Culture does not utterly obliterate our instincts. It sublates , 
preserves and overcomes them. With respect to relationships between men and 
women both culture or social construction and sublated biology or instinct  
play a role. Also, unlike animals we are conscious of evolution, survival of 
the species. My species-being ethic is that we rationally plan survival of 
our species indefinitely. Respectful, passionate, loving relations between 
the sexes follows from this species-being ethic. I know that technology now 
projects the possibility of a test-tube pregnancy norm, but I am not ready 
to throw out, what is it, the 2 billion year old  method of sexual 
reproduction for a synthetic method developed in the last ten years by 
humans. So I am conservative about keeping sexual reproduction for a while. 
So we need to get rid of the male chauvinism that represses sex. ( I am not 
saying all sex is or should be for reproduction !) 

Charlie! Is this and ideological smokescreen to cover up the fact that both 
men and women can really be assholes?

Warm regards
Bob Malecki



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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005