Niceness, culling, fear and trembling

[Hugh Rodwell <m-14970@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Margaret T writes:

>When you are the exploiter, at the top of the
>hierarchy, you do not ask whether niceness should be part of the agenda.

Only true in general -- there's always a philanthropic minority of bleeding
hearts.

>When the tables are turned, only then do you ask.

Not historically, empirically speaking. When the tables have been turned,
the exploiters have fought back against their demotion with unbelievable
ferocity -- as the imperialists have been doing all this century against
revolution and revolutionaries, both socialist and national (and gender,
though this hasn't been as clear-cut cos it doesn't threaten the state).

>People and other creatures quiver from fear, and not from sentimentality.

Lots of reasons for quivering, including some very exciting ones...

>It is just an interesting question, why.

Lots of ifs follow:

>If female human beings have been
>exploited and misused by males since time began,

Maybe they haven't.

>if the most fundamental
>class division is between female and male human beings,

Certainly it isn't. It's the fundamental sexual division, biological, with
a lot of gender distinctions overlaid. In a class society (in the Marxist
sense -- and what other sense makes sense?) these distinctions take on
(historical, ie delimited and changeable) class aspects. Abolishing class
society will change the character of the social distinctions accompanying
gender divisions, and we'll be able to see empirically just how fundamental
and antagonistic they are in and of themselves, without class oppression to
amplify and polarize them into mutual hostility.


>and if females can get along fine without males,

They can't (and needless to say, vice versa).

>except for basic reproductive purposes,

There are species where male and female don't even "get along" with respect
to basic reproductive purposes. They mate, and the female eats the mater,
in some cases with the mater throwing himself into the jaws of the female.
(Gives "alma mater" a new overtone, eh?). Exciting, perhaps, but "getting
along"??

So it looks like we're stuck with humanity as a social animal operating
with intersexual groupings for the most part. Which isn't to say
single-gender groups can't make up part of the rich tapestry etc.


>then why do not females simply eliminate males, cull them as male calves or
>goats or sheep are culled by farmers and sold for meat.

Let's start over. "Since females do not simply eliminate males, then..."

>Because if males
>are allowed to reach adolescence, they only make trouble from then on out.

Ah, but who socializes the little bleeders into trouble-makers and tyrants?
And in whose interest?

>They fight and kill one another by nature.

Only for good reason, of course...

>Better to cull them before they
>reach this stage.

Some might say the culling is done *at* this stage, as in Chechnya, a
recent example of the phenomenon.

>Please understand that I could not advocate such a program.

Then why the pressure to present it so graphically? Is it a programme which
appeals because of its emotional logic? Because it *ought* to be the right
one? Because Margaret would like to advocate it but feels guilty about it?

>My only
>children are two sons, and I love them more than I love anyone  or anything
>else in this world, and after them comes my love for my partner, who is
>male.  I would die for the sake of any one of them if I had to, no
>questions asked.

Stockholm syndrome?... (Or am I just jealous?...)

If Margaret were Doug she'd be apologizing for sentimental quivering by
now. But fortunately for her and us, she isn't.


>But for the sake of argument, while we are all alive and happy and not
>needing to die for each other, I indulge in the luxury of asking, what's
>love got to do with it?

Tell us what you understand by love and what "it" is, and you'll answer
your own question -- might even be able to wangle a grant out of it.

But if it ain't love, then what is it? Perhaps Yoshie could help here,
she's good on feral sexuality.

ciao4now,

Mimi