Reactions to Jim

Valerie Scatamburlo valeries at YorkU.CA
Sat Aug 12 01:48:06 MDT 1995


On Aug 11,  9:36pm, Jim Jaszewski wrote:
> Subject: Re: Reactions to Jim
 >
> On Thu, 10 Aug 1995, jwalker wrote:
>
> > Actually I don't think you're being shat upon because you're male.
>
> 	Then you're not looking too hard...
>
Well Jim, perhaps you should Stop this infantilizing essentialist rhetoric,
if you feel you are being "shat" on because you are a "male" - you are
mistaken - it is your views
on abortion that are being challenged here -  not your gender!!!!


Jim J:
> > > 	Objectively speaking, (mechanically) aborting a fetus is not quite
> > > the same thing as a `morning-after' pill. It should be undertaken
> > > only as a LAST resort -- not a FIRST.

Well "mechanically" aborting a fetus may not be the same thing as popping a
pill but the net result would be the same no?? So what is the point?>And waht
gives you the "right" to proselytize on what the "first" or "last" resorts
should be????



Jim wrote:

	Again, I'm not questioning a woman's TOTAL right to control her
> body.  This keeps being ignored here. It's NOT irrelevant to the
> situation, and I INSIST you keep it in mind when you rake me over the
> coals on the `subsidiary' issues...
>
  Jim, if you are not refuting the "TOTAL" right of women, then what are you
refuting or challenging?  Or should we take your position to be one which
delineates the distinction between total and partial rights? Please explain
what you mean.

JIm wrote:

> I'm sure there have been _many_ women who've made the decision to pursue a
> career over carrying a baby -- is this not an act that is at least open to
> scrutiny?

Yes Jim, there may be cases where women choose to pursue a "career" over
having a baby - but what about those women who don't have that choice.  What
about those women for whom a choice between career and babies is a  distant
fiction.  Furthermore,  what about those women whose boyfriends, lovers,
husbands, etc. don't give a shit about the the woman or the baby???? ExcusE
 me, you'll have to forgive me if this distinction has been made before in
previous posts to this list on this issue - but since I am new - I'll indulge
myself and ask the question.

Jim wrote:

 Indeed, I DO think that many women don't really
> face up to the reality of just what it is they're doing.  Denial is
> rampant in this society if you haven't noticed...
>
Yep!  Denial is rampant - so rampant that many so-called Marxists deny their
misogynist views.  Why don't you face up to what you are doing - mainly
alienating the women on this list - but perhaps that is your intent- perhaps
us women should get back in the kitchen and let the real business of
theorizing and organizing up to the virile men, eh???  I know many a Marxist
scholar and activist (males I might I add) who would find your views on
abortion completely untenable - and it is with those people whom I would
identify myself.  But you on the other hand, represent that strand of
so-called Marxists or communists- who scare me - talk about intolerance!!!

Jim wrote:
>
> 	I did not say or imply that a woman *MUST* `consider' the man's
> views, and reading this into what I said is a clear indication that no
> matter HOW `even-handed' you feel you're being with this poor confused
> male, your views are hazy as regards the facts of my statments or their
> intent...
>
> 	The argument that even CONSIDERING the father's POV will somehow
> set a precedent doesn't prove the necessity of that (plenty of laws where
> interested parties don't have a legal leg [understatement!]), and begs the
> FURTHER question:  shouldn't the woman consider the child's rights?  (the
> argument that a fetus is not a child has always been and WILL always
> remain a weak one -- it's THE *MAIN* battering ram of the Christian Right,
> and a _fact_ and _reality_ which Pro-Choicers have trouble confronting...)

We know what the battering ram od the Christian right is   - but thanks for
reminding us - it's always refreshing to know that a  Marxist brother has
taken the ime out to familiarize himself with the Christian posturing on the
abortion issue.  >

 Jim wrote:
 >
> 	Now YOU have some serious explaining to do...
>
> I don't think so.


>
>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

>
>    Jim Jaszewski   <jjazz at freenet.hamilton.on.ca>
>    WWW homepage:   <http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ab975/Profile.html>
>
>             ++++ stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal ++++
>      ++++ if you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig ++++
> ++++ more info: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm ++++
>
>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

>
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>-- End of excerpt from Jim Jaszewski




     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------



More information about the Marxism mailing list