In our distant youth, some time after sister #1 came out as gay, my late mother caught sister #2 (then a Sr in HS) with her boyfriend in a compromising position. Now at the time, I was a good deal more red than I am now, and chased girls a lot and caught them a fair amount of the time. (I did always use a rubber.) Our mom came out with the immortal cry anguish, What have I done wrong? My children are a communist, a lesbian, and a whore." This despite the fact that I was at least as active as sister #2. But it was my politics and not my pastimes that upset my mom.
--- Charles Brown <cbrown at michiganlegal.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> When I was still teaching, I would occasionally ask
> my students to
> propose a male equivalent of "slut" -- i.e., a word
> that had all the
> polemical force of "slut" but that clearly and
> unambiguously applied to
> males only. No one ever came up with a really
> persuasive candidate. The
> brighter women in the class would often fall back on
> "asshole,"
> acknowledging that while it wasn't specific to
> males, it was the best
> epithet that didn't focus on females. It is really
> amazing how much of
> the available language of contempt is gendered, in
> origin and usually in
> current usage. "Son of a bitch" is classic: aimed at
> men, but focusing
> on their mother, as though the worst thing you can
> say about a man is
> that he has a sexually erring mother.
>
> Carrol
>
> ^^^^
>
> CB: I know women who just use the same term for men
> who sleep around a lot
> as the one currently popular in hip hop genre which
> is a derivative of the
> term of offense on this thread.
>
>
> >From http://stangoff.com/?p=289#comments
>
>
>
> Difference
> Filed under: General, Gender
> By Stan at 10:43 pm, 5/12/06
> .constructed as hierarchy.
>
> http://stangoff.com/
>
>
> "The relationship is more like the relationship of
> worker and capitalist, in
> that workers' have only their labor power to sell
> and must sell it to make a
> living. By excluding women from wage-labor or
> equitable pay, they are
> economically forced to accept the deal. Marx's
> metaphorical "general
> prostitution of all labourers " gets at this from
> another angle.
>
>
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm
>
> Quoting Marx from the Economic and Philosophic
> Manuscripts of 1844:
>
> "Finally, this movement of opposing universal
> private property to private
> property finds expression in the brutish form of
> opposing to marriage
> (certainly a form of exclusive private property) the
> community of women, in
> which a woman becomes a piece of communal and common
> property. It may be
> said that this idea of the community of women gives
> away the secret of this
> as yet completely crude and thoughtless
> communism.[30] Just as woman passes
> from marriage to general prostitution, [Prostitution
> is only a specific
> expression of the general prostitution of the
> labourer, and since it is a
> relationship in which falls not the prostitute
> alone, but also the one who
> prostitutes - and the latter's abomination is still
> greater - the
> capitalist, etc., also comes under this head. - Note
> by Marx [31]] so the
> entire world of wealth (that is, of man's objective
> substance) passes from
> the relationship of exclusive marriage with the
> owner of private property to
> a state of universal prostitution with the
> community. This type of communism
> - since it negates the personality of man in every
> sphere - is but the
> logical expression of private property, which is
> this negation. "
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com