Carrol, Maybe your are being humorous and I am too dense to get it.
Otherwise, this message is unacceptable here.
Carrol Cox wrote:
> Sam Pawlett wrote:
>
> > I think I would say this thread is dead here, but I have to reply to
> > false accusations. Mention the word "penetrate" and you get labelled an
> > August Strindberg!
>
> Sam, look it. You fucked up, and you fucked up royally. Admit it,
> and go on from there.
>
> The question you must ask yourself is why did you feel it necessary
> to make a big thing out of a tautology that no one denies -- that
> sexual relations are necessary for human reproduction. Everyone
> knows that. And in case you don't realize how deeply learned we
> all are, let me pass on the information that no one will deny that
> the capital of New York State is Albany, that St. Louis is west
> of Miami, that the higher ground in Colorado is higher thatn most
> land in Iowa. Also it is really true that 2+2 = 4, at least in
> Euclidean arithmetic. It's been a long while since I studied number
> theory so I may be off here.
>
> When someone solemnly pronounces a tautology, it is quite reasonable
> for others to look for an ulterior motive of some sort. And when in as
> deeply sexist a social order as ours, and in as deeply sexist a leftist
> movement as ours, the pompous tautology is on women's *place* --
> in the maternity ward, that is -- the motive one looks for is a sexist
> motive.
>
> Not the obvious one. I'm not saying that Sam Pawlett really wants
> to keep women in the nursery. What I am saying, however, is that
> Sam has give his comrades reason to fear his trustworthiness. A
> trustworthy leftist in the year 2000 has some awareness of the
> manners of the women's movement. In the same way that a
> trustworthy caterer would would not pick his nose as he passes
> the cocktails around.
>
> What your casual use of the word "penetrate" indicates, until you
> can demonstrate otherwise, is that you belong to that overwhelming
> majority of leftist men in the 19th and 20th centuries who were
> perfectly sincere in believing that women should be equal but who
> simply didn't thing that the issues were all that important.
>
> But someone in the year 2000 who does not recognize the centrality
> to working class struggle of the struggle against male supremacy
> and sexism is not a comrade who can be trusted to have a sense
> of proportion on other issues. A failure in this respect simply distorts
> anyone's political thinking on *all* subjects.
>
> Carrol
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
