The Woman Question: Reply to Melvin

Thu Apr 25 03:20:14 MDT 2002

>Reaction is not against the womb but favors - as a class standpoint,
> preserving the womb on the basis of property relations.  You make this
>clear. Actually, the womb unites us all irrespective of the ideological

<The "anatomical" reduction of the very real, very material, very oppressive
<social relations between men and women, often experienced with more
<immediacy, in the form of physical brutality, by working class women even<
<than their class oppression... to "the womb"... now seemingly disembodied,
<floating around and uniting us all, is a grotesque reversion to the earliest
<,and apparently most intractable) errors of Marx and Marxism.  I say this as
<a Marxist.  This talk of "the womb" is a long step down even from the
<economism of other discussions on the anachronistically named "woman

The use of the "womb" is not my characterization but stated in reply to what
appears to me to be a presentation devoid of class. If you are offended I do
apologize and must state that I don't subscribe to presenting the issue in
such a manner.

My standpoint is not limited to the relationship between men and women but
proceed from the logic of the fight to free labor from its status as a
commodity, i.e., proletarian revolution. As a class, there is nothing more
immediate to the proletarians who are women than survival or selling their
labor power or they would not have to work. I deny no issue peculiar to

The Women Question is resolvable in history on the basis of the proletarian
social revolution and the emancipation of the status of labor from that of a
commodity. I have stated no more than this.

You criticism probably should be directed to the person that raised the issue
from the standpoint you take issue with. I do accept responsibility for the
use of language that may be offense to you.

Melvin P.

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list