"heterosexual"/"homosexual" (was Re: debates was guilty / innocent was debates)

Yoshie Furuhashi furuhashi.1 at osu.edu
Thu Oct 19 12:11:21 PDT 2000



>On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 03:10:03 -0400 Yoshie Furuhashi
><furuhashi.1 at osu.edu> wrote:
>
> > as well as categories "heterosexual," "homosexual," "bisexual," etc., will
>become obsolete
>
>Departure for Mars and Venus, leaving in 15 minutes. Go figure. The moment the
>"queer as fuck" movement begins to demand subjectivity and rights, their
>categories get flushed. Another interesting correlation - between the growing
>demand for women's rights (esp. in the 70s). The moment that women actually
>achieved some degree of political recognition: the subjectivity upon
>which they
>declared their political rights was declared "dead." The Christian right would
>be all too happy to see 'homosexuality' (and heterosexuality) deemed obsolete.
>There is only one truth, after all. All contradictions must be cut off.
>
>sinister,
>ken

The Christian Right won't be happy with the obsolescence of categories of gender, sexual orientation, etc. Since they lost the Soviets as the Evil One against God & the American Way, they have concentrated on trying to swim against the current, save America from homos & abortionists, & return America to the sexual ethic of procreation as duty. Their efforts are doomed, though; at this stage of the history of capitalism, the heartland of accumulation can't return to the ethic that existed before the rise of urbanization, mass production, mass consumption, (sub)nuclear families, fewer or no children, women of all classes (not just of the classes of slaves & workers) having paid employment, single adults living alone or cohabiting with one or more individuals outside the kin network, etc. Try as they might, they will never be able to resurrect the agrarian America based on white small-holders' racial republicanism.

At 5:09 PM +0100 10/19/00, James Heartfield wrote:
>But I take Ken's point that one wouldn't want to abolish homosexuality
>on the basis of denying it, only to remove the oppression concomitant
>upon its characterisation. In that way we could never truly transcend
>the distinction but on the basis of realising it.

Jim, you overestimate Ken's political intelligence. :)

Ken has too much of his working capital invested in the psychoanalytic stocks -- he doesn't like to see his investment melt away in the burst of psycho-babble.

Yoshie



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list