Please, no kudos for female genital circumcision

Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx xxxxxxxx at xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Sun Aug 6 11:31:47 MDT 2000



You are certainly correct, Nestor!

Xxxx

Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky wrote:

> Well, My first reaction was that my blood boiled over, and could do
> nothing best than spurt rage. Now, I want to stress a couple of more
> serious issues.
>
> Xxxx has shown on her e-mail that
>
> (a) there is a clear relation between sexual mutilations and
> conservatism.  This is not a matter of chance, as even the most anti-
> Freudian of our American comrades will certainly agree to accept.
>
> The transformation of free individuals into acquiescent subjects,
> particularly in societies where the process of reification has not
> advanced because the commodity relation is not the basic cell of
> human life, finds one of its main avenues in the imposition of
> physical ablations on those parts of the body directly linked with
> creation (biologically these parts of the body are the place where
> the species activelly "works" to re-create itself once and again as a
> species), and thus with desire  and pleasure.
>
> These practices include the (obviously less harmful in the physical
> sense) ideological ablations of Christian sexual morality, which turn
> the only moment when humans are in unity with themselves as an
> individual and as a species (Marx, _Grundrisse_) into a despicable
> and dirty source of sin and perdition.
>
> Even "sexually free" Western societies today still reject to consider
> this side of the issue, and at most reduce sexual life to either a
> commodified relation between individuals or a "normal necessity",
> such as breathing, or... defecation. In so doing, the importance of
> sexuality for individual and social life is turned into a banal
> thing, which can be traded the way Marx spoke of the French
> bourgeoisie's sexual uses under Napoleon le Petit: through
> generalized prostitution.
>
> These are different examples of a simple and only attitude: the
> harnessing of individual abilities to the necessities of exploitation
> through destruction in the mind of the individual of the basic
> creative strengths of human deep psichology. What strikes us as
> tremendous in mutilation is that they display, materially so to say,
> the social intentionality of sexual repression.
>
> We are facing a girl killed through a barbaric intervention. We face
> thousands of girls killed through septic abortion all over Latin
> America. But even if these practices were not deadly, even if they
> were not ridden with class difference (something Mine also shows very
> well: in my own country, rich women abort in cozy environments and
> expensive clinics, poor women abort with knitting needles; if this is
> not class war, I don't know what is), even if they were not -as they
> are- sustained by the most reactionary sections of population, we
> should still oppose them.
>
> Whatever practice that tends to stiffle individual creativity is anti-
> socialist, no matter if it has been brought down to us by centuries
> and centuries of social history. Class rule has also been brought
> down to us by those same centuries, and we know it has become a
> curse. Genital ablations, either physical or psichologycal, are the
> individual counterpart of class rule.
>
> On this, Wilhelm Reich was absolutely right. _TOO_ right for his
> mental sanity, perhaps. But he was right.
>
> When the Victorian bourgeois claimed that socialists would impose
> free love, they were right.
>
> Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
> gorojovsky at arnet.com.ar

--

Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx
PhD Student
Department of Political Science
SUNY at Albany
Nelson A. Rockefeller College
135 Western Ave.; Milne 102
Albany, NY 12222



____________NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_________
Download Now     http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Request a CDROM  1-800-333-3633
___________________________________________________________





More information about the Marxism mailing list