Archive for the ‘gender’ Category

Females and the Catholic Church

April 12, 2010

I won’t say the Catholic Church has been patriarchal or male-led for eternity. I’ve seen some contrary evidence, perhaps inspired by post-modern digging, perhaps not. However, in recent times, it’s safe to say that the Catholic Church is male-led and hierarchically organized and the females who join understand that principle when they join it.

A search of “Google News” shows many so-called news stories about this topic right now, thanks to the fact that bishops did not support Obamacare (–the real reason, not the reason given.)

Periodically the media “discovers” that the Catholic Church is male led.

Western females should just never join it. When they figure out that they don’t like it, they should quit.

In economics, have-it-both-ways between the proletariat and capitalists is petty-bourgeois. In the realm of ideas Marx called superstructure, the have-it-both-ways of reporting on the Catholic Church is political parasitism. The whole discussion consistently teaches people to weasel instead of taking positions and actions based on principle.

Instead of being derivative of others in this parasitism of ideas, people should take a side and strike out on their own.

Now the liberal Democrats are afraid what the healthcare vote forecasts for the Supreme Court vote. The have-it-both-ways arguments are just a by-product of Democratic Party interests and lesser-evil pragmatism, also known as weaseling opportunism.

Spreading have-it-both-ways ideas does not bring change. It is merely a comfort blanket for the petty-bourgeoisie and a deception for the proletariat. The proletariat does not have to choose between McCain and Obama and it does not have to choose between nuns who want Obamacare and bishops who don’t. The System stirs up these false controversies and fans them to distract people from real struggles that could drive the world forward.

Advertisements

A stalking victim’s sad tale

April 8, 2010

Our tale starts in class.

Stalking victim: Never go into denial about the problem. Experienced stalkers can carry out some pretty amazing stunts with great determination.

Class: Like what?

Stalking victim: There was the time my stalker was past dating me and his next victim and looking for a third, when he showed how it is possible to stalk two people at once.

Class: How did he do that?

Stalking victim: I still haven’t figured out how the monster managed that, but I was walking from central campus to the weight-lifting room for the workout I do every five years, and he knew my plan. He must have been stalking me before we started dating, when I last did my weight-lifting five years prior. At the same time, he stalked his more recent girlfriend from another part of campus to the same gym room.

Class: What did you do? Did you call the building security? The police?

Stalking victim: No, both victims were frozen in horror. It just goes to show there is no place that is safe for wimmin, not even the weight-lifting room.

Class: So you finished your workouts?

Stalking victim: Yes, wimmin should never let stalkers alter their lives. We must be brave.

Class: How would you recommend that we defeat the stalkers so we can go lift weights every five years?

Stalking victim: When you move, give him your phone number and tell him to call you. Then, when he calls, tell everyone your number was unlisted and that he was such a powerful controller he must have intimidated the phone company. That was my best tactic, but determined stalkers will continue after that.

Class: Oooh. Do you have any other advice for empowering wimmin?

Stalking victim: Yes, don’t forget persynal attacks, because they can get you elected president.

Class: How do we do that?

Stalking victim: Easy, never argue a point of substance, only style and biography. Try to write two autobiographies before running for office.

Class: Are there any books to read on this?

Stalking victim: Don’t worry, the curriculum here is set up. The new trend of post-modernism is very empowering.

It’s always useful to try to imagine what is going through the minds of lynchmob people. The above is a day or two in the life of my lyncher #1.

Gender update: Clinton, Reese Witherspoon and Pakistan

March 27, 2010
  • See our gender page.

    Hollywood star Reese Witherspoon and the State Department sponsored a new website for gender bureaucratic leadership in Pakistan on domestic violence, rape and humyn trafficking. The entire content of the website would have fit into the footnotes of this article, so I was going to say that it is a perfect example of a “false flag” operation.

    When we read a website with so little substance, we should be on the look-out for false flag recruiting or disinformation. In this case, it is wrong to call it “false flag,” because the State Department seal appeared right on the website. So there is nothing being hidden. It turns out that the media uses the people involved to deliver Aesopian messages, so we should not just take the leadership project at face-value.

    If we were to take the new Clinton initiative for women’s leadership at face-value, we’d have to say it was another effort to sell Hollywood films in the Third World.(1) There was no argument, say against MIM, that if the State Department(2) is so horrified by patriarchy in Pakistan it should give all the females there a visa to the United $tates, problem solved. (Now ask yourself when you see any pseudo-feminist groups calling for that kind of solidarity? The reason we never see it–Amerikkkan nationalism is the real substance of pseudo-feminism.)

    Hollywood movie star Reese Witherspoon will tower above everything else in the Clinton initiative. She is an example of a top gender aristocrat being turned into a gender bureaucrat, a leader in political explanations of gender.

    It turns out that even the motivation of selling more Hollywood films is over-simplified. The source of money is a cosmetics company. Avon is a cosmestics company with $10 billion in annual revenue.(3) According to itself “The Avon Foundation for Women (http://www.avonfoundation.org) is the world’s largest corporate-affiliated philanthropy focused on women’s issues.”

    In the rich countries today it is ONLY the MIM line attacking the mutual reinforcement of class and patriarchy. Without MIM’s theory of gender privilege creating a gender aristocracy and gender bureaucracy, we are not attacking the Hollywood sales approach to feminism.

    As MIM has stressed since the early 1990s, the pseudo-feminist movement was a reaction against the Black Panthers. The Black Panthers and all anti-racists since have taught that racism is a bad attitude backed by power: ethnocentrism is not enough. Pseudo-feminism did not agree, did not want to talk about power, wanted to avoid responsibility in situations of power and was fine with the occupation of Vietnam. Pseudo-feminism to this day seeks to have it both ways, a pretense of interest in power kept along with a possibility of retreating to non-public child-like status.

    That’s why pseudo-feminism made the subject language and feelings, as a refuge from the attacks of the anti-racist and anti-imperialist movements. If MIM targets lynching for political power and war, pseudo-feminism is sure to point to the use of pornography by over 90% of men under 40. At the same time, pseudo-feminism will do nothing but complain.

    MIM does not disagree with complaining but that complaints should aim at patterns of power that can be changed. There are countries that abolished profit and pornography.

    That’s why we agree with Carrie Hamilton. People who want to go missionary on gender in the Third World should favor the State Department’s opening the borders, completely–something we have said on our gender pages, but we never hear from complainers about humyn trafficking.

    If they are going to complain about general male desire for pornography and models, then pseudo-feminists should be for taking away the rights of females to be models, strippers and prostitutes. Yet we never hear that, because the pseudo-feminists want to have things both ways. They want females to have the rights to do things they are going to complain about the men having.

    In imperialist countries, there will be models, strippers and prostitutes. Believing otherwise is lying to oneself.

    People who don’t like it have to get on board with socialism, making it illegal to make profits and outlawing the “right” and “freedom” to strip etc. Yeah, that includes banning the use of female bodies in billboards and ads.

    We agree with Gloria Steinem(4) that if males were paid the way females are, male sexuality would be in the air. We’re opposed to that approach to equality and instead favor getting rid of capitalism, so we harp on not having things both ways.

    Steinem is also correct that people should get angry instead of depressed. Some people find it hard to relate to MIM’s angry feminism. We try to stress the reason for that is too much fussing with Witherspoons and Drew Barrymores.(5)

    Gloria Steinem did pretty well for herself despite Hugh Heffner. This may cause many doubts about getting too angry, but Steinem does not come off angry by MIM standards.

    Perhaps if one is raised at the right or sheltered schools and then launches into a rarified professional circle, one never witnesses anything to get really angry about, or only very rarely. Yet there is also a Looksetariat. Beyond that, we should try to visualize violence and harassment against Down’s Syndrome children as the substance of feminism, and start from there: it happens and pretty often.

    Yes, we can feel badly for Princess Di and even be angry. To be sure though, it is better to reconceptualize gender and really start at the bottom.

    People who can be paid to be female agents to seduce men are not good examples of gender oppressed people. That’s why it’s better to think about the Looksetariat a little more.

    The gender aristocracy question is also related to class. The Democratic Party campaign coffers, mega-corporation coffers and FBI and CIA coffers can afford to hire gender aristocracy ‘hos to chase after and spy on revolutionary men. The proletariat generally cannot afford to hire ‘hos to chase after the bourgeoisie.

    Another aspect of class is that the world’s majority of females are super-exploited wimmin, who see Witherspoon, Barrymore and Steinem and don’t get angry at the actress, model and pornography angle but think, “that’s a nice job opportunity they got.” It’s reminiscent of the joke I saw by a comic on television who said poor is not having a donkey: poor is seeing a three-legged donkey and wishing one had a three-legged donkey.

    That’s not to leave aside the question of male spies sleeping with females, another kind of oppression of the class system. The British just found some examples of their police sleeping with female political activists while spying.(6)

    Pseudo-feminists are not really aiming to advance the cause of wimmin. They are simply reacting against attacks on the System. They sense that their nation and class privileges are under attack.

    Notes:
    1. http://asiaprnews.com/2010/03/11/38712
    2. http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/03/138217.htm
    3. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1002/S00151.htm
    4. http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/2115614,CST-NWS-steinem22.article
    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62G4H220100317
    http://www.wowowow.com/politics/what-your-reaction-newly-signed-health-reform-law-lesley-stahl-gloria-steinem-457932
    5. http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/mar/27/drew-barrymore-interview
    6. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/21/activists-demand-inquiry-undercover-police

  • Google latest victim of its own missionary disease

    March 23, 2010

  • See also, “Big victories against pornography”

    The New York Times has reported the gradual departure of Google’s influence from China.(1) Google is claiming to be for non-censored search results in China, and this to a U.$. audience used to thinking poorly of China.

    The other side of the story is not being heard in the U.$. media.

  • Google was the first adwords business to censor MIM political ads.
  • Google assists the U.S. federal government in spying on citizens.
  • Google has always made pornography available.

    On the other hand, with any large corporation, not everything it does is all bad. The British press complains that British secret services are exposed by Google satellite.(2) MIM would recommend finding other ways to spy on the British SAS.

    The attack on privacy in the name of profits is a hallmark of fascism. It amounts to saying: trust your large corporations and government that work together. In actual fact, Liberal capitalism requires privacy. However, in the name of “free speech” corporations are spying on people and spreading pornography.

    Large corporations have arrived to muck up the Internet and drag people backwards. The latest is mobile phones that collect information on their users and sell it, in a fashion similar to web collection of spy data.(3)

    Google apparently suffers from Western missionary syndrome in which violations of freedom in other countries receive great play while violations of Google’s homebase country’s freedom and privacy receive no attention.

    In a similar vein, Iran has taken action to ban Google’s gmail.(4) Inside U.$. borders, the white supremacists have Asian-unAmerikkkans rocked back on their heels, but in Asia awareness and self-consciousness is growing. The days when everything Asia does is repression and everything Amerikkka does is “freedom” are receding.

    Notes:
    1. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/technology/24google.html?pagewanted=2&hp
    2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hereford/worcs/8577848.stm
    3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/apr/02/google-privacy-mobile-phone-industry
    4. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/10/iran-shuts-gmail-announces-national-e-mail-service/

  • International Wimmin’s Day

    March 8, 2010

    I have scattered observations for International Wimmin’s Day.

  • Yesterday, I received a brief Aesopian threat against my mother who supposedly was taking her last breath.

  • There has been some renewed attention to a motorcycle/miniscooter situation in which a young womyn was injured.

    The higher one goes into international issues, the more threats. There are privileged U.$. females making contributions in struggle, but many will not be known until certain levels of threat and repression pass.

    As Kristof’s most recent column on Rwanda correctly pointed out, in many war situations it is the men dying but it is also the time wimmin face the highest threat of sexual violence. Something has gone wrong with the national question and sexual violence goes up. One cannot say there is a war and then men don’t die but sexual violence increases. That’s not usually the case in Rwanda, ex-Yugoslavia or many other places.

    Leaving aside that situation and looking at females in imperialist countries, for International Wimmin’s Day, I would recommend the ruminations in Charlotte Raven’s latest article. What’s valuable about it is that the article attempts to see whole patterns of social interaction, not just one persyn’s experience.

  • Clarity on what gender is: REPOST

    March 1, 2010

    1998 MIM Congress
    Clarity on what gender is
    by MC5
    March 6, 1998

    MIM has struggled mightily to bring back into vogue in the communist movement of the imperialist countries the Marxist-Leninist definition of proletariat. Too often categories of people not even considered workers by Marx — lawyers and journalists for instance — are considered proletarian by imperialist country so-called communists. Nonetheless, although MIM struggles mightily, people as diverse as Progressive Labor Central Committee members and Third World sojourners have admitted that they can see this question, if not the answer, principally because Lenin and Engels raised it so clearly.

    When it comes to defining gender oppression, however, the communist movement is at an even greater loss than in defining proletariat. The main difficulty is in separating gender oppression from the economic materialist method. Understanding gender oppression requires an understanding of dialectics.

    We proceed by discussing what gender is not and the role of reproduction as narrowly defined in gender and we end up concluding that gender must be located in leisure-time for a number of reasons. What dialectics helps us see is that many oppressions of biology are caused outside of biology or gender in the realm of class or nation. It is wrong to call such external conditions of gender gender itself, just as it would be wrong to say that the Japanese invasion of China was the substance of China’s development from feudalism to capitalism and socialism itself. The Japanese invasion of China was a decisive but external condition of Chinese class society’s development in the Mao era. Likewise, there are class, nation and cultural factors that influence gender, but they should not be mistaken for gender itself. At the beginning of humyn history reproductive-status was crucial to gender, but as time went on gender became increasingly located in leisure-time, and this is clearest in imperialist society.

    The dynamics of reproductive-status itself do not point in any historical direction. The historical tendencies of child-bearing-status are bound up with other external conditions to such an extent that reproduction cannot be separated from the growth of the productive forces. To that precise extent, reproduction is a poor location to find gender, except at the very beginning of humyn history when reproductive capacity and its dynamics contributed to the formation of class society as much or more than the rest of the division of labor.

    Once patriarchy formed from the advent of class society through the present day, gender oppression was something mainly historically shaped by non-gender factors relating to class and nation. While people of certain reproductive biology were selected for a certain kind of oppression, they were selected for such oppression for new reasons unconnected to the intrinsic nature of that reproductive status. Among other reasons, gender appears ahistorical, because it has never been the source of the principal contradiction except at the very beginning of class society. Despite this fact, that is not to say that gender has not existed independently of nation and class. We are merely stating that it does not attract humyn political and scientific attention in its own right until later in history. When starvation, illness and homelessness recede, gender in its own right and not something externally conditioned by other social factors starts to appear. This appearance coincides with a more widespread parasitism such that entire nations of millions live on the labor of others. Gender existed before parasitism, but it is increasingly noticed in parasitic society.

    To understand gender it is necessary to know when a phenomena associated with child-bearing status or female biology is rooted in something external to gender.

    MacKinnon and reductionism

    Catharine MacKinnon has contributed to the discussion by drawing an analogy. She says work is to Marxism as sex is to feminism.

    In one fell swoop, MacKinnon has actually defeated a metaphysical pseudo-Marxist approach to gender. No longer are we only talking about how the organization of work conditions gender, but we are talking about a basis of gender oppression itself. MacKinnon goes on to talk about rape, battering and sex harassment as the substance of feminism. Setting the going rate of gender oppression is pornography according to MacKinnon. Such is in contrast to the situation of work where class struggle of competition amongst capitalists and between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie sets the wage.

    We should not be surprised that an imperialist country feminist would come to this conclusion. Any examination of wimmin in the Third World shows them confronted with high probabilities of starvation, illness and war caused by the organization of work, not gender oppression. It has been up to imperialist country feminists to say what gender oppression is, crucially, once economic needs have been satisfied. This is part of the reason that oppressor nation wimmin figure so prominently in feminist movements. Most of the problems burdening Third World wimmin in particular even relative to Third World men are caused by external nation and class forces. It is only where the class and nation oppressions and their external conditioning of gender are eliminated that we can see gender operating in its own right, with its own laws of development.

    All sex as rape

    From MacKinnon, MIM drew the anti-Liberal revolutionary conclusion that all sex is rape. Since MacKinnon’s “post-Marxism” as she calls it is pre-Leninist, it has no sense of the problems with economist reformism, the need for a vanguard party or the precise intersection of national oppression with the organization of work. Hence, we depart from her at this point, while giving her her due. She got us to a point of analogy with Marxism and we were able to see from there how to come up with a non-economist, non-reformist anti-Liberal feminism.

    MIM could have chosen to say all sex is prostitution and that would have preserved the anti-Liberal, system-view that MIM always brings to social analysis. There are two good reasons not to call all sex prostitution though. One is that the masses rightly or wrongly blame prostitutes for prostitution. MIM did not want to contribute to the political atmosphere of singling out one sexual lifestyle, group of biological wimmin or occupation as the problem for gender oppression. Secondly, prostitution is fundamentally about the cash-sex nexus, while MacKinnon says rape is not just the cash-sex nexus, because rape is set up by the institution of pornography which determines what is socially pleasurable. Whether or not MacKinnon is precisely correct about the superstructure element known as pornography is less relevant to us right now than the fact that calling all sex rape may get us out of the cash-sex nexus for analysis. One reason getting out of that nexus is important is that it raises the question of what would happen if cash were eliminated and sex for profit were impossible: would there still be gender oppression? MIM believes there would be.

    Reproduction narrowly defined

    To the extent that biological men may seek to control the reproductive capacities of biological wimmin, we want to ask whether there is another basis of gender oppression. However, it is important to note that this is strictly an issue of biology, one that could be eradicated by the invention of true test-tube babies that were easier to raise than in the womb. If technology makes it possible for any persyn to recreate humyn life, there will no longer be a drive to control biological wimmin’s biology in that regard. That aspect of gender oppression will be gone.

    By discussing reproductive technology and its progress — including things like the morning after pill which is going to make the issue of abortion irrelevant soon — we do not mean to trivialize gender oppression. In fact, biology as a factor in gender oppression has been in place for all humyn history. It cannot be overlooked in a true feminist analysis. If in fact reproductive status can be implicated in gender we will have found a biological and hence material basis for gender. The development of test-tube technology is also something concrete and not just a matter of culture or a way of looking at something.

    One question raised by the issue of reproductive capacity as a resource controlled by ruling classes is that by itself, there is no saying that having such a capacity would make one oppressed. Having the resource could in fact be seen as an advantage of power held by biological wimmin. “At home, barefoot and pregnant” is oppression, but how did it come about? Pointing to a biological difference of reproductive abilities in itself does not answer this question. We could just as well ask what did people with reproductive capacity ask for from men in return for access to that capacity? The question is parallel to asking how classes originated. Fundamentally this nagging question about reproductive status undermines its candidacy for being the substance of gender. It seems unable to explain the development of hierarchy, except in the crucial beginnings of class society as we will see in a minute.

    We should also stop to consider the position of wimmin without reproductive capacity. Shall we say they are no different than men? Is their position solely determined by what happened to them earlier in life when they had that reproductive capacity? Again why did not older wimmin end up being the ruling group of society?

    The most sensible discussions of the origins of patriarchy have to do with a division of labor in which physically stronger men made war while wimmin stayed home. Tribes sending their men to war had an advantage over tribes that sent their wimmin to war, not numerically in the number of warriors but in sustainability. Tribes with wimmin at home reproduced faster, while tribes that risked their wimmin in war at a time in humyn history when there was not much economic surplus relative to today– such tribes suffered systematic defeat for a lack of ability to create warriors over long periods of time. Through struggle, tribes that took wimmin as slaves and used only men as warriors survived. In a society with little economic surplus, physical strength and reproductive capacity did mean a lot. As the organizers of war, men became the state and thus had power. Societies in which wimmin were the organizers of war died out for lack of reproduction relative to male-warrior dominated tribes.

    Today such factors are irrelevant thanks to the growth of the productiveness of labor. Does that mean gender oppression is gone? We think not. Would it be gone with test-tube babies? Not quite. We will return to this question later.

    For now we only note that reproductive status could easily be thought of as being crucial in the early stages of humyn history. It could be the basis on which much of our patriarchal superstructure is built. As time goes on though, the case for reproductive status being the center of gender weakens. Instead, it becomes more and more a resource to be manipulated by hierarchies created by dynamics external to gender.

    Poaching in Marxism: a theft of part of the Marxist concept of reproduction

    An extended argument of reproduction as the basis of gender comes from Maria Mies. In this concept, reproduction is broadened to include the idea of reproducing the wage laborer on a daily basis to be ready for work for wages by cooking, cleaning and knitting socks. This argument amounts to poaching within Marxism’s turf of the organization of work to find a basis for feminism. It amounts to a broadening of the concept of biological reproduction but a vulgar narrowing of the concept of reproduction of modes of production by Marx and Engels.

    According to Mies we need to look at unremunerated laborers as the real vehicle of social change. Such unremunerated laborers Mies calls wimmin. She says they are more revolutionary than proletarians and do more work than industrial workers, especially in China and India where peasant wimmin do the work in the fields and at home while men forage for more advanced careers or simply work less.

    While unremunerated labor is very important, we are dissatisfied with calling it gender. We are happier calling some wimmin in difficult conditions slaves than we are calling slaves wimmin. The Mies approach has the disadvantage of taking us away from biology and leisure-time activities and it creates a political excuse for equating imperialist country housewives with slaves and proletarians as a vehicle of change. Indeed, by the Mies interpretation, housewives in imperialist countries could be seen as more advanced than proletarians. To MIM this only reveals that we do not want those with conscious or unconscious pseudo-feminist agendas poaching in the Marxist scientific laboratory. (We believe Mies is an internationalist of some sort with only a somewhat conscious pseudo-feminist agenda.)

    Other authors too have attempted to locate gender in the division of labor instead of recognizing the division of labor as something conditioning gender. What this line of thinking regarding the reproduction of economic relationships and the division of labor reveals is that some people recognize that Marx put his finger on the central scientific issues of societies such as ours that have not yet achieved superabundance. The approach of Mies is flattery of a sort to Marxism–the recognition that Marxism is so valuable it must be stolen for other purposes. However, we reject all attempts to rename parts of the mode of production or class as gender. Feminists should go get their own laboratory and quit trying to rename the oppressions elucidated by Marx in the analysis of class society.

    Reductionism and imperialist society

    The fact that the principal issues facing Third World wimmin are starvation, war, repression, homelessness etc. does not mean that gender oppression is starvation, war, homelessness etc. It simply means that the status of Third World wimmin as workers or peasants in countries oppressed by imperialism is more important than their gender oppression. Nor does the fact that First World wimmin are more likely to see gender as the principal contradiction mean that Third World wimmin are not in fact more gender oppressed.

    It is in imperialist society where we can start to see more easily what gender oppression is when issues of starvation and national oppression have been removed. We agree with MacKinnon that sexual harassment, rape and battering are not gone. For that matter we should mention certain dynamics of divorce that make leisure-time something more like a business war.

    MIM can calmly state that the subject of gender oppression is such that as long as there is imperialism and its attendant starvation, war, homelessness and illness, gender conflict will never be the principal contradiction. We firmly rebuke all the post-modernists “working on their own oppression” as if it were in any way equal in the humyn condition to that faced by the starving or homeless of the Third World.

    In addition, we say that while gender oppression may be clearer in imperialist countries in some ways, biological wimmin in the imperialist countries are in fact gender oppressors, generally members of the gender aristocracy, parallel to Marx’s and Lenin’s concept of labor aristocracy.

    Biological health status: a non-reducible material component of gender

    Humyn biological development is an undeniable material part of gender. Consideration of children is especially in order. Children are almost universally sexually oppressed or less gender privileged than adults. Children are the oppressed gender regardless of genitalia.

    As the body develops it becomes more useful for work. Such able-bodiedness issues are already covered in the concept of the mode of production. However, there are other aspects of the development of the humyn body that can only fall in the area of leisure-time–the capabilities of sexual experience or debatably, pleasure.

    The dynamic of humyn development also helps us to point to a hierarchy, a development of gender oppression intrinsic to gender. The use of children’s bodies for sexual pleasure by adults is perhaps gender oppression at its sharpest. While MIM is holding out for scientific evidence on the biological basis for sexual pleasure in adults, we have no doubt that there is a biological difference between children on average and adults. This is not to say that we uphold society’s definition of adulthood. We believe it highly desirable to give the legal right of consent to 13 year-olds and instruct children on control of their own bodies.

    Historically, the physical development of children is also important in being able to resist or not resist repression. To this day, children are subject to the physical force of adults, while many adults make up for their physical weaknesses by using industrial goods such as guns that children do not know about or have access to. Thus sexual and physical capacity points to a clear hierarchy in gender oppression and we can thus locate humyn biological development as a crucial perhaps decisive locus of gender and gender hierarchy.

    Thanks to post-modernist feminism it has become popular to believe that economics may be a better subject matter of science than biology. Yet we believe that physics, biology, geology, chemistry and political economy are all subjects of the materialist method. The biology of children is crucial in understanding gender as an object of materialist analysis.

    Adult physical capacities dictated by biology should also be examined. In China for example, Deng Xiaoping instituted the one-child policy and allowed the return of feudal values without putting up a fight in the superstructure. Hence, parents seek to have boys to pass on property through a family name that has in all likelihood existed for at least 2000 years. The parents use sex-determination technology to abort female fetuses. There is also a huge practice of female infanticide in India and China.

    Another reason given for female infanticide is that on farms, parents want someone to work. Men carry water better and do not leave the neighborhood when they get married. These ideas play a role even though many wimmin do carry water, maybe even most of the water.

    These aspects of gender oppression in China reduce to class and superstructure. There is no need for a concept of gender per se to explain them. The ancient superstructure tied up with maintaining the family’s name may go back to the time of warring tribes in slave society already discussed. Physical strength and reproduction mattered then. They don’t anymore, but tradition continues in the realm of ideas, simply because leaders like Deng Xiaoping didn’t knock tradition down.

    The idea that boys carry water better is less and less relevant. It also fits in well with the idea of wimmin as having a relative physical disability, a small one to be sure. However, it is not a gender issue, because such parents would also abort any child deformed in such a way as not to be able to carry water.

    In choosing to recognize three, but no more strands of oppression–class, nation and gender–MIM reasoned that disability is tightly bound up with class. Able-bodiedness is both a cause and consequence of class.

    Before a baby is born in China and India, disability is a consideration, mainly as a class consideration. This is so true that men face a shortage of potential wives and end up paying ever-larger dowries in China now that Mao is dead. Somehow, the shortage of wimmin is not seen as putting wimmin in a position of power, and dowries are paid to brides’ parents.

    When we examine modeling and prostitution in the imperialist countries, though, we see that able-bodiedness– good health is still important in leisure-time even for adults. It is not that wimmin with whatever health problems cannot perform sexual services for money. Being unable to carry water relative to men hardly matters to models or prostitutes. At the same time, we do not see adult models or prostitutes with open sores or missing limbs attracting the largest sums of money for their services. Hence, we say that health-status is an irreducible biological component of gender as seen in leisure-time activities of the parasitic classes.

    The huge variation in pay for models, prostitutes and actresses is not just huge variation based on nation and class. Even within the oppressor-nation there is huge variation, and that variation is connected to the substance of gender oppression that cannot be reduced to nation or class. A portion of that variation is the biological health-status of gender. It becomes more relevant in societies with more leisure-time. Nonetheless, we cannot say gender oppression or privilege is the same for all people in societies of high leisure-time, so it is not just the flip-side of the organization of work in the sense that labor-aristocrats and other bourgeois classes have more leisure-time. If parasitism were all that is involved in gender oppression, there would be no totem-pole by which some oppressor-nation wimmin can translate their gender privilege into radically higher pay than other oppressor-nation wimmin.

    Despite the fact that sex with young children is the most taboo of all, such young children do not command more money for their services than adults. Business booms in adults. Thus as measured by the cash-gender privilege conversion ratio, the gender privilege ranges from that of young children being the lowest up to prostitutes and models of adult biological females who are physically able and tend to identify with male ideas of pleasure the most.

    It is also clear this substance of gender is the substance of gender, because biological men are paid less in modeling and prostitution– and only those two occupations. We now turn to a deeper look at prostitution.

    Prostitution: permanent vs. contract

    The greater expense of wedding parties and gifts to the family to either get rid of or obtain a womyn bring us to an area that gives greater insight into what gender oppression is in China. Both in the Third World and in the imperialist countries we have permanent full-time prostitution called marriage and we have contract prostitution called crime.

    In the Third World, the shortage of wimmin is created by class structure and the ancient superstructure of patriarchy. Meanwhile, in the imperialist countries, the price to biological men of permanent prostitution is closer to an issue of intrinsic gender oppression.

    In imperialist countries, wimmin are not starving or homeless generally, and those that are we exclude for the moment as wimmin whose problems are principally class and nation. Thus it would seem that oppressor nation wimmin can marry more for reasons of romantic love, for pleasure. That is to say the cash-sex nexus is weakened and what MacKinnon is saying comes more into play.

    At the point where partners somehow do escape the cash and power connection to sex — which seems dubious — we would be talking about the sex of two men together. Regardless of genitalia, anyone who experiences sexual pleasure will be considered male. Uncorrupted sexual pleasures of two such men together is a purely speculative idea, because as of now there is no way to extricate sex from the situation of class society. Those biological wimmin that regularly claim they can experience sexual pleasure above national and class oppression are what MIM calls gender aristocracy, unless they are simply lying for the benefit of their class and national position, in which case we would simply refer to them as members of oppressor classes or nations. The claim of biological wimmin to experience sexual pleasure and that MacKinnon and MIM are wrong, is similar to the belief of Liberal anarchists that it is possible to rise above capitalist society with a lifestyle. Such Liberals of class and gender essentially see no class structure or patriarchy or assign it a very small role.

    Before we completely eliminate the cash-sex nexus from further considerations, we would like to look more closely at divorce. In the situation of older generations in the oppressor-nation where wimmin never worked, there is again a class issue at work in divorce court, one so obvious that courts now recognize that wimmin who gave up their careers are entitled to half the spouse’s earnings and wealth. We do not wish to stake our argument on such older generations. As it turns out, alimony and child support payments tend to go well beyond what is necessary for survival, especially for wimmin who do work, which is not to deny the uneven situation especially in the older generations. After divorce, wimmin’s per capita income declines precipitously while men’s rises.

    Yet even with regard to older generations still alive, it would be difficult to say that wimmin chose their marriages “in order to survive.” For younger generations, the old conceptions of divorce are even less relevant. Despite the fact that wimmin are better and better off in Amerika, divorce courts continue to innovate to protect wimmin.

    In the name of protecting wimmin and children, the function of divorce court is to ensure the continuity of permanent prostitution. Since oppressor-nation wimmin no longer starve in imperialist countries, the stakes had to be raised considerably to ensure the continuation of permanent prostitution. A womyn who marries Donald Trump is to be assured of becoming a millionaire whether divorced or not. Becoming such a millionaire is not part of the organization of work but part of the organization of leisure-time.

    In this way, the cash-sex nexus is maintained. To do otherwise would be to admit that wimmin marry for their own pleasure apart from cash. In a romance culture purified of the cash-sex nexus, men and wimmin would take their chances with their pleasure and emotional pain. Such pleasure of biological wimmin we call “gender aristocrats” is more prevalent than in previous history, but it is still not a pleasure purified of cash or power influences.

    Divorce court is an alliance of paternalist pseudo-feminists seeking to tell tall tales of oppressor-nation economic deprivation on the one hand, and rich, usually educated, “pussy-whipped” men on the other hand. The term “pussy-whipped” is the righteous term of the lumpen males like Eldridge Cleaver who often go too far in opposing all feminism and not just pseudo-feminism, but it is correct in a class sense. If divorce courts did not award wimmin the wealth of men, there would be no way for men to use their money to assure their wimmin that giving sexual access will be worth their while financially. True, rich men when divorced by their wimmin complain loudly, but never loudly enough to change the rules. It is after all rich men who continue to make laws and run the judiciary system.

    For some reason, ruling class men still prefer to have the advantage over other men in obtaining access to wimmin. The splitting of wealth with older wimmin by ruling class men has no other explanation. We believe this is all rooted in the leisure-time pleasures of men. Something that can be done with money is purchase of a certain leisure-time lifestyle.

    The economic conditions of the oppressor-nation people and the large settlements in divorce court — larger in richer families, not larger in families where wimmin suffer more from starvation or career loss — point to a society of leisure-time where the cash-sex nexus is in force more than ever but for different reasons than in societies where the development of the productive forces is lower. Indeed, since oppressor-nation wimmin can begin to entertain their own ideas of sexuality, the cash-sex nexus had to be increased drastically to maintain its hold at all. A court innovation of just this generation is “palimony.” Palimony was invented to assure that gender interactions between the contract level and the permanent level did not slip through the cracks of the cash-sex nexus. It has become difficult to tell the difference between spending money on luxuries in leisure time and having sex.

    Again, the pseudo-feminists will retort that their divorce court interventions were aimed at reducing gender oppression. From our point of view, it is again just another example of how pseudo-feminists will do anything to avoid hitting the nail on the head. We repeat: gender oppression cannot be eliminated by dating advice, by dating preferences or by divorce court policies. Inequality is inequality and should be addressed head-on at the system-level, not by awarding half of the male economic power in divorce court. The divorce court reform of pseudo-feminists only reinforces the cash-sex nexus with a vengeance. It is a continuation of the intertwining of power and desire, such that the two become confused.

    Gender oppression as by-product of leisure activity

    Capitalism could function without rape and sexual harassment. These oppressions are separate and essentially they are by-products of leisure-time activity that should not be located in the mode of production.

    Whether it be modeling, prostitution or divorce court, clearly men are willing to pay for something in connection to their leisure-time desires. White rich men even have to endure being charged with rape by Black wimmin and they cannot charge Black wimmin with rape within our culture. The ability of Black wimmin to charge white men in court and not vice-versa for rape shows that the dynamics of such oppressions can only be found in leisure-time.

    Stupid reductionist pseudo-Marxists and pseudo-feminists have proclaimed that merely being paid for sex — the existence of “sex objects” — is oppression, never mind the amounts of money involved in the imperialist society. We at MIM do not agree.

    In the first place, wimmin who can use their looks or sex not to work, they obviously have some kind of sexual privilege that can be translated into class status. Even some young wimmin who would attract rich men may be stuck in grinding poverty because of national oppression, closed borders. They may have nothing else going for them, but well-paid models are gender aristocrats or higher on the patriarchal totem-pole. Health status and pornography standards (perhaps not in the sense MacKinnon means) ordain which wimmin are most gender privileged, which wimmin will make $100 an hour or $100,000 a night for past services in some divorces and which wimmin will be available to the poorest men.

    The high-paid prostitutes, models, actresses and housewives such as Marla Trump are not themselves oppressed. They form the anchor for gender oppression of others. Just as in capitalism there must be sweepstakes winners and capitalists who make it “on their own” to show that the system works. There must be winners in the patriarchy to ensure compliance up and down the line. If all the winners were of one biology, revolution would develop much more easily. Yet just as there is a split in the working-class internationally between proletarians and labor aristocrats, there is a split in biological wimmin internationally between wimmin and gender aristocrats.

    Whether or not there is a biological component to male desire or whether it is all determined by pornography, that desire can be measured by the legal and illegal things men do to satisfy it. All gender oppression which is not a vestigial superstructural remnant from tribal slave societies is a by-product of this desire. Even appropriation of humyn bodies for pharmaceutical testing is gender oppression, but it is mainly determined by class conditioning. Only in leisure-time (e.g. pharmaceuticals related to leisure-time) can we locate gender oppression in its own right.

    On this one point, we will express our debt to Shulasmith Firestone, who recognized that extinguishing the romance culture would be necessary for wimmin’s liberation. Our departure from Firestone is that we are not in any way in debt to Freud and we believe that gender oppression is not just in culture. It has material bases in humyn sexual development, perhaps adult hormone levels as well. MacKinnon and Foucault made excellent points about the reinforcement of sexual pleasure as intertwined with power, but in MacKinnon’s case, she found herself willing to get involved through the courts, and thus departed from the logical conclusions of her own theory, which should indicate that revolution is necessary. Her interventions in the courts only increase hierarchy in sexual desire.


    Material bases

    We have already mentioned that we know there is one material basis of gender oppression in reproduction, especially historically. It is material, because it would take a technology of test-tube babies or the equivalent to eliminate difference. It is something tangible, not just an idea belonging to the superstructure.

    Aside from the material basis in hormones giving rise to desire usually suspected in gender oppression, there is a question of health-status. People of biologically superior health-status are better workers, and that’s a class thing, but if they have leisure-time, they are also better sexually privileged. We might think of models or prostitutes, but professional athletes of any kind also walk on this fine line. Athletes, models and well-paid prostitutes are not oppressed as “objects,” but in fact they hold sexual privilege. Older and disabled people as well as the very sick are at a disadvantage, not just at work but in leisure-time. For that matter there are some people with health statuses perfectly suited for work but not for leisure-time. None of these are cultural factors. They are material biological factors in gender oppression, an inability to even function in leisure-time being a kind of oppression–a substance intrinsic to gender oppression, which might be inborn in the case of some disabilities.

    The ratio of men to wimmin is another material fact of life impinging on gender oppression. The higher the ratio, the greater the extent, but the shallower the depth of gender oppression. There will be more men per womyn to harass each womyn, but the possibilities of evading any particular man are greater as men fight for the right of access to wimmin.

    Finally, with regard to the cash-sex nexus, in extremes it is a matter of class. However, when applied within the parasitic leisured classes, the cash-sex nexus becomes a dynamic strictly rooted in leisure-time. From the biological womyn’s point of view in the parasitic class case, it is only a question of how to spend leisure-time, not whether there will be leisure-time. Should she buy more jewelry or spend more time reading books? For more jewelry she should have more sex in her spare time. She simply converts one leisure-time privilege to another. It is a choice amongst leisure-time activities.

    Regardless of biology, whoever suffers violence on account of this leisure-time is gender oppressed. Murder victims in “crimes of passion” are gender oppressed. They have lost both their work and leisure lives for reasons rooted in leisure time. Victims of fraudulent pharmaceutical devices to improves sex lives are also oppressed, but in no overly important way. Just as in yacht crashes, victims of crimes of passion or luxury surgery do not have to come from the oppressed classes and nations. That is another reason we know that gender exists as a third strand.

    In a society of loose sexual mores or where prostitution is otherwise legal, we see that it is not possible to attribute crimes of passion to the organization of work. It might be possible to buy the services of a prostitute, but still people commit crimes of passion and battering. It is also be possible to hire people to cook, clean and deliver groceries and still there are crimes of passion in such parasitic classes. In fact, within its own dynamics, imperialist society is tending toward “service society.” That means restaurants and laundries are proliferating and wimmin are returning to work. This reveals that gender cannot be irreducibly located in the division of labor or the cash-sex nexus. Which oppressor-nation people will be sought in leisure time the most and which will be most inclined to violence in connection to leisure pleasures, these questions cannot be answered just by looking at the organization of work.

    Sexuality with its irreducible health-status component is something tangible, and therefore subject to material analysis. The privileges associated with sexuality vary persyn to persyn within the same nation, class and reproductive status. That has to do with the dynamics of leisure-time.

    The problem with MacKinnon’s pre-Leninist post-Marxist feminism is that it does not follow through the logic of reformism. Drawing the line from the womyn’s point of view so that more men go to prison for rape and lose more money for sexual harassment does nothing to extinguish gender oppression, as Firestone would say of the romance culture. Quite the contrary, since we are already the world’s leading prison state, we ask MacKinnon, so what is “the” womyn’s view of this? How many more men should be in prison? What should the Black womyn think about the fact that Black men are already in prison at rates last seen for Russians living under Stalin in war time? (At Northeastern University there was a forum initiated by Black wimmin last year who had the perception that Black men were dating white wimmin, when in fact the shortage of available heterosexual Black men is statistically related to prison and poor health care leading to death.)

    Should not men separate from wimmin entirely if the cost of their interaction is prison, the creation of bureaucracies, sexual harassment and stupendous law-suits? What MacKinnon is doing only reinforces the message that desire is important to protect– so important we are willing to put more men in prison and have more law-suits rather than separate the sexes or abolish dating. As usual it will be the upper-class, “pussy-whipped” men willing to put up with this from the world’s MacKinnons and see it as gallantry. Even MacKinnon’s compatriot Dworkin admits the Congress passes their ideas for legislation as if they had no idea what they were doing. They can afford the law-suits and the lawyers to prevent prison. It just makes sex that much more of a challenge and statement in one’s leisure time. It’s exactly that intertwining of sex and power that MacKinnon describes so well as the basis of rape and harassment, but fails to uproot with her pre-Leninist reformism.

    Opponents of gender as autonomous strand rooted outside the organization of work

    There are three basic sources of opposition within Marxism to the idea that gender is an autonomous strand of oppression. All criticisms can be reduced to one of these following areas:

    1. Gender oppression can be reduced to class or class and nation oppression. There should only be one strand or two strands of analysis of oppression. Economist readings of gender oppression as causing higher profits belong here.

    2. Gender oppression is superstructural, meaning not in the realm of the dynamics of matter, but simply as ideas in the superstructure created by class society. These ideas may continue to exist after the classes that created them are gone. They have to be actively battled in the realm of ideas.

    3. Some of what Marx and Engels called the mode of production is really gender and should be renamed such. This is the angle in which pseudo-feminism moves in with its agenda to subvert the anti-imperialist movement from within. An example would be calling the reproduction of labor-power gender and the work of Maria Mies.

    Outside of Marxism is another influence impinging on the discussion of the Maoists on gender–post-modernism. According to post-modernists, the truth is relative, and hence the oppression of starvation and war cannot be rated any different than the reception of persynal insults. As such post-modernism sometimes centers entirely on language.

    On the other hand, post-modernists may tend to side with MIM on one question of separating different kinds of theories of gender as third autonomous strand of oppression. They will side with us in saying that genitalia are not the substance of gender, an idea that anything connected to a certain biology is gender. They will contend that gender is socially constructed, only to such an extent as to deny materialist science.

    By making clear what gender is and what it is not, MIM frustrates the patriarchal reductionists on the one hand who say there is no such thing as gender oppression and the post-modernists and pseudo-feminists on the other hand who think gender inclusive language or doing laundry might be the principal contradiction in the world. MIM’s theory of gender identifies precisely something that cannot be included under the rubric of the mode of production and it does so in a way that makes clear that gender cannot be a principal contradiction while there is still imperialism while at the same time naming gender as part of the fundamental contradiction. Because MIM’s gender theory is so, it attracts an unholy coalition of enemies ranging from reductionists to post-modernists and advocates of viewing gender as biology.

    We do not deny that imperialism conditions gender in very important ways or that patriarchal ideas in the superstructure must be actively swept away or they will not fall of their own accord. Yet if all we can do is talk about how external conditions influence gender then we should admit that gender is not an object of materialist analysis in its own right and we should reduce our analysis to two strands. MIM holds that instead, historically reproductive status was very important to gender and today, the dynamics of leisure-time and humyn sexual development are the material basis of gender. As such the discussion of gender apart from the organization of work known as the mode of production is necessary as part of any elaboration of the fundamental contradiction of oppression that Mao spoke of.

    Big victories against pornography

    February 27, 2010

    While the media continues pornographic focus on my individual lifestyle, MIM tipped the balance in several battles against pornography this past month. MIM was able to do that only because of the influence of the international united front, not because there was a feminist uprising here.

    Various corporations have entered the fray of MIM’s battles. A long time coming, a number of business leaders with tension with Google took up cudgels against pornography. Of course China and Russia stated the usual, but then the unusual happened as applications of MIM line took shape in the West.

    Earlier MIM reported that the EU had changed its Internet rules in response to the shutdown of the MIM website. On related points ATT and Murdoch also raised complaints. Next the “New York Times” announced it would begin charging for content next year. Combined these amount to a challenge to Google’s business model.

    Apple landed a big blow when innovator Steve Jobs announced that most pornography would be gone from iPad. “Business Week” criticized Jobs for allowing Playboy and Sports Illustrated’s swimsuit issue.(1)

    On February 24, Italy convicted three Google executives for distributing a video of people harassing an autistic persyn.(2) Italy called it violation of privacy, not defamation. EU struggles against Google monopoly power followed.

    Google has also faced complaints about its satellite surveillance of the public through “Street View.”(3)

    In the midst of this struggle, Steve Jobs said that Google’s slogan of doing no evil was “bullshit.”

    The new wave of struggle against pornography centers around a fresh understanding of how the pornographers, Internet, NSA, FBI and mafia interact. Previous struggle by Catharine MacKinnon sought to pass laws that allowed suit for damages to wimmin caused by distribution of pornography. The current struggle against pornography is framed in terms of freedom from surveillance and protection of the political and artistic sphere.

    With the example of Paris Hilton, the notion that sexy females do not want surveillance took a big hit. It’s apparent that much money flows to those who succeed in a sex scandal that might typically end in a photo shoot in “Playboy” — what MIM has always said about the “gender aristocracy.” The MIM theoreticians figured it out as the common persyn did, while others continued to play evermore strident word games detached from reality about the “exploitation” of Paris Hilton.

    This is not to say we support overzealous Hollywood photographers, but that battle was not at the bottom of the gender foodchain. That’s what makes the Italian action on behalf of privacy of the disabled exactly what is necessary in the battle against pornography. (See MIM’s definition of gender to understand that. (The theoretical definition applied by the Italians is part of what the fascists took down with the downing of our etext.org website.))

    The “Business Week” criticism of Steve Jobs is off base, not forward-thinking. Getting rid of a generalized freedom to produce pornography is a good thing for two reasons. One is that it is too difficult to regulate all the pornography production out there. It is better to attack its reward system. Two is that the NSA/FBI lie in wait to tag Internet users selectively with downloading child pornography, beastiality etc. So we heard that the Nazi museum shooter had child pornography at home, thanks to the FBI. This is something we want to take away from the FBI, NSA and politicians generally.

    Although the NSA has use by politicians seeking dirt on each other, other aspects of the military have become more attuned to the pornography question thanks to MIM struggle. We have considerably increasing evidence that the military brass would like to follow the MIM gender line in Iraq, and avoid Lynndie England torture situations and other abuses of leisure-time.

    The military, Apple, Korean and Italian struggles against pornography are led by men, at least on the surface as far as we can see. Even in the example of Catharine MacKinnon herself, discussion of a Penthouse boyfriend sells. It is actually biological males who most generally (with the exception of Brad Pitt) are not potential recipients of gender bribery connected to pornography, even as they demand it. Spurred by a correct perception of the state, men such as Steve Jobs may in fact lead more effective struggles against pornography than have been seen in the past.

    As we pointed out about the struggle against “Playboy” and such magazines in Indonesia, the average Third World male has a better idea and greater interest in attacking pornography than the Paris Hiltons, Monica Lewinskys and other icons of the West.

    Just as the media ramps up its MIM-related rumor-mongering reminiscent of the never-ending scare television and radio had in handling the Black Panthers, MIM has had the greatest success of its career in the battle against pornography.

  • See the article that we believe inspired the Italian decision to convict Google executives for videos oppressing disabled people: “Getting clarity on what gender is”

    Notes:
    1. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-25/sex-trumps-jobs-as-in-steve-in-app-flap-rich-jaroslovsky.html
    2. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/24/BUHC1C6KIQ.DTL
    3. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2010/02/eu-regulators-critical-of-google-street-view-report-says.html ;
    http://blogs.zdnet.com/Foremski/?p=1201

  • Comfortable white nationalist identity for lesbians

    February 24, 2010

    There is no term for an “Uncle Tom”-equivalent of lesbian identity. Chalk that up as another disproof that language is inherently directly misogynist: our position is that language usage may be ignoring both achievements and responsibility of females, but inherently English is actually more hateful toward males — with terms like pirates, terrorists, rapists and Uncle Toms always being imagined male. In the case of “Uncle Tom” there is no reason that term should be directed at males at all, because it’s about selling out Black people. And of course statistics on imprisonment of Black men bear out that the culture is loaded more against Black males than Black females, who are not seen as as much of a threat.

    When one sides with my lyncher of 1989-1991, one is siding with homophobia in print. The program of the RCP at the time of the lynching stated after mentioning pornography and prostitution:


    “As for homosexuality, this too, is perpetuated and fostered by the decay of capitalism. . . . Education will be conducted throughout society on the ideology behind homosexuality and its material roots in exploiting society, and struggle will be waged to eliminate it and reform homosexuals.”


    See the RCP program in .pdf where this quote comes from

    Now if Joseph Stalin (JS) said something like that back in the 1930s, MIM already pointed out that the context and what people in general were saying was not good at the time. However, by the 1970s and 1981 of this program by the RCP, things had changed. That RCP program did not change till after years of MIM criticism, and it was only years after the lynching.

    In fact, MIM recently received information to the effect that Jiang Qing worked with LGBT in practice. We are left believing that Mao himself did not have a problem with Western dancing or LBGTs the way the Chinese public did at the time. So that was the 1970s in China already, but in the rich United $tates we still had Avakian talking like JS.

    The most vehement supporter of the lynching movement that I knew of in the 1989-1991 period told me, “you can’t prove you DIDN’T [caps mine to emphasize her tone] rape someone.” It would not be hard to picture this persyn in a swiftboat ad against me. I told her at the time that I could prove it. More importantly, it’s hard to think of any reason for defense attorneys if one can never prove innocence. The whole attitude that an accuser is so much higher than the accused could be from fascism or pre-1789 serfdom.

    The original context for the role of vehement supporter #1 was an interaction not involving me but involving both political and potential sexual competition for MIM females. I have been told I would not have had much interaction with the persyn otherwise.

    So first there was the lynching, then a call on lesbian identity politics to defend it. NPR alluded to this recently and an obviously self-hating lesbian activist threatened to side with the RCP and racism via discussion of an after-the-fact claim that the lesbian activist felt physically threatened by me. This is exactly the kind of identity politics training people received in blue state hotbeds of fascism.

    No one, no lesbian activist now or in the past ever sat down with me to have a discussion of how her road through Democratic Party activism was better than my road for LGBT liberation. We never hashed out who had greater achievements in that area. That was not the point. I was lynched first and then the call on lesbian activist identity became important.

    A lesbian activist talking like JS for the backward line threatened me on NPR with going to 3 million alleged listener/readers on behalf of the Democratic Party. That’s why we need a term for “Uncle Tom” of lesbian activism. Any Christian conservative or mafia group could pay someone to discredit the LGBT community by always using it to justify KKK stunts.

    With Obama’s connection to Chicago corruption and campaign money, we need a critical feminism. The idea that some people have untouchable status and that white females never lie about rape is a falsehood big enough for any two-bit mafia or party hactivist to drive a truck through.

    Whether real or fake lesbians, people should not pin their racism on the LGBT community after-the-fact. For real white lesbians doing this, we need the LGBT equivalent of “Uncle Tom” as a term.

    Valentine’s Day news

    February 14, 2010

    Saudi Arabia declared as “haram” things connected to Valentine’s Day. Among other things, romantic love can lead to servility.(1)

    (There is a play on words out there on whether Obama’s issues with me are criminal or civil.)(2)

    Saudi culture may not make for popular reading in the West, but it makes good points. These same questions are the reasons we came up with the theory of gender privilege, the gender aristocracy. From the male heterosexual side, when we make icons of “smoking hot” females as Ann Coulter calls them, we are headed for pussy-whipped subservience to imperialism.

    The Islamic slogan of “There is no god but god” covers the same idea of no idols, no icons.

    At the moment, I’ve given up much gender privilege, because it’s interfering with my work, by creating distractions from very important issues.

    I recognize significance in the announcement by Patrick Kennedy that he will not run for re-election in 2010.(3) He is placing issues of love, depression, mental illness, autism and drug addiction at the center of his life.

    Notes:
    1. http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-saudi-valentine13-2010feb13,0,1057895.story
    2. http://www.alternet.org/news/145586/when_will_obama_stop_trying_to_work_with_republicans
    3. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/02/12/rep_kennedy_to_bow_out_spelling_end_to_family_era/
    http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/02/patiu.html

    Daily update

    February 11, 2010

    We had a series of admissions in the last 48 hours.

    Let me concur that either zero or two Black females were sent in the last four years to check on me, and the two were not into it if they were sent. 20 years ago, there were no Black females sent, but the calculation would have been that another race would be more credible for lynching purposes, and let’s admit they had their way with the issue 20 years: it worked.

    Plus there was also one Black female sent via dating network to convey post-hoc child pornography threats against me on behalf of Obama and Holder.

    So in other words, this was a gravy train for white females. And now “Newsweek” has also pointed out that among my friends they and their friends are getting promotions. Let me concur that as far as I know, none of those promotions went to Black females. So the gravy train is both short-term and long-term building of the ‘ho structure surrounding me.

    Some other papers are still parsing what I mean by desire. I do think it’s catching on, but it will be a long time before what I said on that will really be accepted, the MIM line via MacKinnon. It’s not just a criticism of male dominance and enjoyment of power but also criticism of how females give up any intrinsic idea of pleasure (if they had any to begin with) and take up facsimiles of male desire artificially produced by the ‘ho structure.

    In the 1930s there was much money, some Soviet, for U.$. union organizing. In the 1960s, there was the draft and an overwhelming demographic youth bulge. In my generation and more recent generations there is a huge increase in funding for government-related international work. It’s not really so far of a leap to say an average communist girlfriend would have been a stay-at-home housekeeper or union activist or sympathizer in the 1930s and a covert CIA or other state operative in more recent years. The problem is that the state now has various hooks and an increasing proportion of the population with no idea what it means to be independent of the state politically.

    As to other allegations, I already answered them with mathematical precision my critics probably cannot understand on the etext.org Asian-unAmerikkkan website page taken down by the conveyor belts to and from the imperialist state known as revolutionaryleft.com and “Revolution Books.”