Reactions to Jim
jjazz at freenet.hamilton.on.ca
Sat Aug 12 23:51:24 MDT 1995
On Sat, 12 Aug 1995, Valerie Scatamburlo wrote:
> 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!!!!
I sincerely beg to differ...
> 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????
I'm only trying to put things in perspective. Why are YOU being
> 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.
I think you should go back to the genesis of this thread and see
how it was Lisa Rogers who pumped this whole thing up out of a comment I
made. I have no intent to qualify a woman's rights to her body, other
than to bring out that right's clashing with certain of her social
relations when they enter into the picture.
> > 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.
Sure. What about all that? There's no problem here with most of
the above. Someone has invented a problem here with me out of `whole
cloth', as the expression goes.
This still doesn't deal with the `career woman' above, though.
> 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
I put the full blame for all this on the shoulders of Lisa Rogers.
In trying to defend myself against her rather hateful tirade, I am being
painted as something I am not. I truly resent this character
assassination. I have decided to take the bull by the horns, though, so
bringing up denial, for instance, brings on further abuse -- when none of
this would've happened in the first place if Rogers hadn't decided to make
me her favorite whipping boy.
I sure hope she DOES screen me out.
> 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!!!
I think your comments here are completely non sequitur.
Talk about intolerance...
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 ---
More information about the Marxism