Gender, Race and Class - Belated reply/Reply
JOEFREEMEN at aol.com
JOEFREEMEN at aol.com
Wed Dec 26 14:38:26 MST 2001
Marx, Engels and Gender
>The complexity of human social relations cannot be contained in rigid
categories or strictly functional >conceptions of gender. Engel's philosophic
error in reducing the dialectic is one he shares with many >post-Marx
Marxists; it becomes easier to label defeats and obstacles than to hear the
subjects of >revolution.
>How can we embody philosophic opposition to sexism and heterosexism?
If one is to approach the writings of Marx and Engels seriously, the context
and environment of the writing must be accessed to determine their validity
for a particular stage of written human knowledge. If one can illustrate
obsolesces, then it is proper to reproduce that which was stated and show why
it has become obsolete by current standard and methods of inquiry.
"Engel's philosophic error" in the context of a discussion that accepts the
validity (reality of existence) of being heterosexual versus homosexual makes
me nervous. I become nervous not because I am overrun with fear of having my
anus penetrated by a penis - which is the fundamental meaning of male
homosexuality, but rather my nervousness arises from the categorization of
the ideology of an era into a framework of logic. You state this and show
nothing by the way of evidence of obsolesces in Marx and Engels writing and
do not clarify the question for resolution. Yet it is stated:
>If one is to approach the writings of Marx and Engels seriously, the context
and environment of the >writing must be accessed to determine their validity
for a particular stage of written human knowledge. If >one can illustrate
obsolesces, then it is proper to reproduce that which was stated and show why
it has >become obsolete by current standard and methods of inquiry.
I have evidence that their approach has been superseded by modern science and
history. Where is your proof? The problem is the "eunuchism" is the oldest
written face of homosexuality, but the intelligencia is too lazy to do the
work and confuse the question, while presenting homosexuality in a context
that the working class rejects as a class. Surely the eunuch arose as a unity
with its female counterpart, which is elementary acceptance of dialectics.
For a person who has lived - the past 30 years, more or than less as an
adult, the social process and all the ideological forums, wherein
homosexuality as social phenomena was converted into the "Homosexual
Liberation Movement" and then the language was recast into the "Gay
liberation Movement" it is elementary to ask "why" or "what are the
conditions under which this transition took place?"
Where is "Engels philosophic error" or where does Engels abandon the
materialist dialectic approach - which he helped invent, in unraveling the
question of biology and gender in the first modern writing on the "women
question" in the history of earth? Wherein consists the limitation that
describes life - the analysis of social life and scientific thought, between
1850 - 1890? What was the state of scientific inquiry?
I could bite a brick in half when someone declares that scientific truth is
untrue and declares with the power of afterthought and another historical
era, - 100 years later, that the historical moment was "wrong." The
development that ushered in the conception called the "Gay Liberation
Movement" was a historical period. When did the words for this conception
arise and under what conditions?
What is homosexuality? Homosexuality is sex - engaging the sex organs in
stimulation, with a member of the same gender. What is the Homosexual
Liberation Movement, now called the Gay Liberation Movement, to be liberated
from? The answer cannot be violence because every strata, sector and section
of society seeks to be liberated from violence and every strata, sector and
section contains heterosexual and homosexual members.
If homosexuality is stimulation of the sex organs by member of the same sex,
what is stimulation as a scientific construct? How does one approach the
question in the first place? Like a bourgeois intellectual, who is why I want
to bite a brick in half, the ideologist of the past several decades when
sector logic reigned supreme, approach homosexuality in a manner impossible
to unravel and without a materialist dialectic approach.
Dialectics is not a game or magic word. It is a conception of reality that
has to be leant and studied. Allow me to submit for your inspection the
polarity in which the question can be understood. Stimulation exists as the
polar opposite to frequency. These are profound conceptions that can only be
understood on the basis of science. Frequency is a discharge of energy from
spontaneous molecular structure in respect to sex with a polar opposite,
which is the biological basis for existence. This same frequency discharge
becomes stimulation outside the field of the unity of reproduction with
member of the same sex. With member of the same sex the use of a catalyst is
required - and all acts that reproduce the sex act devoid of reproduction
possibility means the conversion from a frequency to stimulus, because
reproduction is not implicit in the act. This is no crime by any stretch of
Allow me a moment of vulgarity. How in the fuck can feeling good between two
human beings be a crime? This does not exhaust the question as science.
Does there exist on earth a sector of the population that is homosexual and
the word sector does not mean section? Every sector of society, which is a
sociological conception with specific economic designations as the
fundamental line of demarcation, is heterosexual and homosexual. The Women
Question has nothing to do with the recently posed question of political
rights and anti-violence against homosexuals as a section of humanity.
"Recently posed" means in the last 50 years. The Women's Question is
thousands of years old and arises on the basis of biology because the only
thing that makes a woman a woman is biology. Vagina - like, who am I to
complain, not that I have a complaint.
The idea that homosexuality has something in common with the question of
nationality and colonial enslavement and oppression is absurd and
unrealistic, unless one approaches political rights from a non-class
standpoint. There exist on earth no sector of society that can be called
homosexual. Homosexuals exist as sections in every sector of society and will
not go away simply because someone has a different opinion. Female
homosexuality is an aspect of homosexuality as social phenomena. This of
course has nothing to do with the class struggle in the sense of society
moving in class antagonism.
Homosexuality as an arisen aspect of the social transitions in society must
be addressed. Why address the question when no one speaks from science?
Science means biology and biology means that one must approach the question
from a standpoint of what constitutes life reproduction in the manifestation
of homo-sapien-sapien, and the various deviations that constitute the "norm"?
Homosexuality is a deviation and as all deviations, proves the rule and as
such is not criminality or "wrong" as such.
The Woman Question is a question because a division of labor arose in human
society welded to biology. I am prepared to discuss these questions but not
on the basis of feelings or an ideology that has only appeared in the last
thirty years. Homosexuality is same gender sex. If an analysis of
homosexuality is being called for this is relatively simple, but a waste of
my time compared with the class struggle.
If you ask me about being an African American and industrial proletariat and
union leader it is a waste of my time, but your questions will be answered -
On the Woman Question? This is a horse of a different color, but it very more
important to the question of this stage of capital and its qualitatively
different features. I know a little something about organizing women on the
basis of women and black women as the most oppressed and it's is not the
trajectory that will bring justice to all of us and freedom. Sector logic, no
matter how noble is fraught with dangers and defeat.
>When Engels develops his formal, category - one he valued quite highly -- of
"modern individual sex >love," he tries to envision a non-sexist future, men
and women as equal partners, their love unconnected >to economic or social
exploitation. He advocates a voluntary serial monogamy as the ideal of human >
sexual relating. But once again, Engels has left the dialectic behind in his
The problem is that you don't show what Engels said and make up an
explanation and interpretation of what you thing he said. Engels use as an
approach founded on the dialectic - the polarization and separation of love
and sex-love. Engels shows and explains why sex-love - reproduction, evolves
and engenders love without sexual reproduction, which becomes a polarity
called love and sex love. The world had not yet conceptualized the
polarization of love and sex love in the context of the material development
of society. The only formal categories Engels put forward is the modality of
materialist dialectics. Simply because Engels was fond of the ladies is no
reason to distort his scientific approach.
Then two concepts are put forward without an understanding of what they mean.
The use of "fate and destiny" is serious. If destiny is historical
inevitability then one is compelled to show the underlying laws that make
that which emerges as inevitable - the outcome of a series of events whose
manifestation creates the laws of a higher social process. Fate is of course
the multiplicity of events that gives form to actuality at every stage of its
emergence and usher in destiny.
>Biological determinism is vulgar materialism, not historical dialectics.
Is it not clear that one must define "biological determinism" and the
biological imperative, which drives the human assertion? Everyone on earth
has a social consciousness wherein biology is understood as an underlying
impetus of all social development. The specific problem is that biology is
defined on the framework of alchemy, not withstanding the modern advances in
There is a biological basis of exploitation in society because it arises from
a biological basis - the existence of human beings as biological imperatives.
At every stage in the growth of production and science, the manifestation of
the methods and means of exploitation changes. Women are exploited not as
women but as a manifestation of labor-power in today's world. Their modern
exploitation as labor-power can only arise on the basis of their existence as
women - a biologically distinct imperative from men.
Biological imperative as human beings has as its fundamentality for existence
alkalinity. The polarity with alkaline is of course acids. What has this to
do with the class struggle? I believe plenty because it defines the
historically inevitable that commodity production must assume in a society of
Look, Joan spoke of upper body strength of men, biological necessity as child
bearing being in the "home" versus "running the streets" - hunting and away
from the home in increments of time, which equals "where were you when the
kids were crying." But everyone says biology and forgets that botany is the
story of human biology. That is to say the organic composition of human and
the basis of life, as we know it, at this stage of science is alkalinity and
Gimme a break and regulate the sector ideology to the realm of academia, in
the poorest sense, until science is consulted.
Homosexual ideology is bankrupt as is womanist ideology as is African
American ideology and all other ideologies that take on a life of their own
and soar/sore above reality and the axis and matrix of life. Yes, specialized
field of study are needed, but they cannot override the rails that constitute
the framework of science in the tradition paved by Marx and Engels. Where is
Engels wrong? Quote the material and face the challenge. Sector logic will
go the way of the spinning wheel and the internal combustible engine.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism