The Voice of the Anti-Imperialist Movement from

Under Lock & Key

Expand ULK. Send us $50 concealed cash with an address and we'll send you a stack of each issue for the next year. help out
[Theory] [Gender] [Principal Contradiction] [ULK Issue 65]
expand

Intersecting Strands of Oppression

Latifah

While we frequently discuss gender oppression in the pages of Under Lock & Key, most readers will notice a primary focus on national oppression. This is intentional, as we see the resolution of the national contradiction as the most successful path to ending all oppression at this stage. But for any of our readers who like our focus on nationalism, and have not taken the time to read MIM Theory 2/3: Gender and Revolutionary Feminism, i recommend you take a look. It is in MT2/3 that MIM really dissected the difference between class, nation and gender and justified its focus on nation. Don't just focus on nation because it's more important to you subjectively, understand why it is the top priority by reading MT 2/3.

All USW comrades should be working their way to the level 2 introductory study program offered by MIM(Prisons). We start level 1 studying the basics of scientific thinking. In level 2, we move on to study Fundamental Political Line of the Maoist Internationalist Ministry of Prisons, which gives a good overview of the 3 strands of oppression: class, nation and gender, and how they interact. This issue of Under Lock & Key is intended to supplement that theoretical material with some application to prison organizing and contemporary current events. (Let us know if you want to sign up for the study group.)

Academic Individualism vs. Revolutionary Science

Bourgeois individualism looks at race, class and gender as identities, which are seen as natural categories that exist within each individual. While proponents of identity politics generally recognize these concepts have evolved over time, they generally do not explain how or why. Dialectical materialists understand nation, class and gender as dualities that evolved as humyn society developed. Under capitalism, the class structure is defined by bourgeoisie exploiting proletarians. Class looked different under feudalism or primitive communist societies. One of the things Marx spent a lot of time doing is explaining how and why class evolved the way it did. Engels also gave us an analysis of the evolution of gender in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State.

One self-described "Marxist-Feminist critique of Intersectionality Theory" points out that "theories of an 'interlocking matrix of oppressions,' simply create a list of naturalized identities, abstracted from their material and historical context."(1) They do not provide a framework for understanding how to overthrow the systems that are imposing oppression on people, because they do not explain their causes. This "Marxist" critic, however, falls into the class reductionist camp that believes all oppression is rooted in class.

The MIM line is not class reductionist, rather we reduce oppression to three main strands: nation, gender and class. This is still too limited for the identity politics crowd. But when we dive into other types of oppression that might be separate from nation, class and gender, we find that they always come back to one of those categories. And this clarity on the main strands of oppression allows us to develop a path to success, by building on the historical experience of others who have paved the way for our model.

While MIM is often associated with the class analysis of the First World labor aristocracy, this was nothing really new. What MIM did that still sets it apart from others, that we know of, is develop the first revolutionary theory on sexual privilege. The class-reductionism of the writer cited above is demonstrated in eir statement, "to be a 'woman' means to produce and reproduce a set of social relations through our labor, or self-activity."(2) MIM said that is class, but there is still something separate called gender. While class is how humyns relate in the production process, gender is how humyns relate in non-productive/leisure time. And while biological reproductive ability has historically shaped the divide between oppressor and oppressed in the realm of gender, we put the material basis today in health status.(3) This understanding is what allows us to see that things like age, disability, sexual preference and trans/cis gender status all fall in the gender strand of oppression.

Using "Feminism" to Bomb Nations

Militarism and imperialist invasion are antithetical to feminism. Yet the imperialists successfully use propaganda that they wrap in pseudo-feminism to promote the invasion of Third World countries again and again. Sorting out the strands of oppression is key to consistent anti-imperialism.

In MT 2/3, MIM condemned the pseudo-feminists by saying that "supporting women who go to the courts with rape charges is white supremacy."(4) A recent Human Rights Watch report discussing alleged widespread rape in the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea (DPRK) is getting lots of traction in the Amerikkkan/Briti$h press.(5) This campaign to demonize the DPRK is just like the campaign to imprison New Afrikans, with potentially nuclear consequences. We have two leading imperialist nations who committed genocide against an oppressed nation touting information that is effectively pro-war propaganda for another invasion and mass slaughter of that oppressed nation.

If it is true that rape is as widespread in the DPRK as in the United $tates and Great Britain, then we also must ask what the situation of wimmin would have been in the DPRK today if it were not for the imperialist war and blockade on that country. In the 1950s, Korea was on a very similar path as China. Socialism in China did more for wimmin's liberation than bourgeois feminists ever have. They increased wimmin's participation in government, surpassing the United $tates, rapidly improved infant mortality rates, with Shanghai surpassing the rate of New York, and eliminated the use of wimmin's bodies in advertising and pornography.(6)

An activist who is focused solely on ending rape will not see this. Of course, a healthy dose of white nationalism helps one ignore the mass slaughter of men, wimmin and children in the name of wimmin's liberation. So the strands do interact.

Distracted Senate Hearings

Recently, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh went through a hearing before his appointment to assess accusations of sexual assault from his past. This was a spectacle, with the sexual content making it tantalizing to the public, rather than political content. Yes, the debate is about a lifetime appointment to a very high-powered position, that will affect the path of U.$. law. But there was no question of U.$. law favoring an end to war, oppression or the exploitation of the world's majority. Those who rallied against Kavanaugh were mostly caught up in Democratic Party politics, not actual feminism.

A quarter century ago, MIM was also disgusted by the hearings for Clarence Thomas to be appointed a Supreme Court Justice, that were dominated by questions about his sexual harassment of Anita Hill. Yet, this was an event that became quite divisive within MIM and eventually led to a consolidation of our movement's materialist gender line.(7) It was the intersection of nation with this display of gender oppression that made that case different from the Kavanaugh one, because Thomas and Hill are both New Afrikan. The minority line in this struggle was deemed the "pro-paternialism position."

The minority position was that MIM should stand with Anita Hill because she was the victim/oppressed. The line that won out was that Anita Hill was a petty-bourgeois cis-female in the First World, and was not helpless or at risk of starvation if she did not work for Clarence Thomas. While all MIM members would quickly jump on revisionists and pork-chop nationalists, paternalism led those holding the minority position to accept pseudo-feminism as something communists should stand by, because they pitied the female who faced situations like this. Similarly today, with the Kavanaugh appointment, we should not let our subjective feelings about his treatment of wimmin confuse us into thinking those rallying against him represent feminism overall.

Bourgeois theories and identity politics

The paternalistic line brings us back to identity politics. A politic that says right and wrong can be determined by one's gender, "race" or other identity. The paternalist line will say things like only wimmin can be raped or New Afrikans can't "racially" oppress other people. In its extreme forms it justifies any action of members of the oppressed group.

Another form of identity politics is overdeterminism. The overdeterministic position is defined in our glossary as, "The idea that social processes are all connected and that all of the aspects of society cause each other, with none as the most important."(8) The overdeterminist will say "all oppressions are important so just work on your own. A parallel in anti-racism is that white people should get in touch with themselves first and work on their own racism."(9) Again this is all working from the framework of bourgeois individualism, which disempowers people from transforming the system.

There is a paralyzing effect of the bourgeois theories that try to persynalize struggles, and frame them in the question of "what's in it for me?" Communists have little concern for self when it comes to political questions. To be a communist is to give oneself to the people, and to struggle for that which will bring about a better future for all people the fastest. While humyn knowledge can never be purely objective, it is by applying the scientific method that we can be most objective and reach our goals the quickest.(10)

chain
[Gender] [Theory] [ULK Issue 65]
expand

Notes on Advancing the Struggle Inside: Intersecting Strands of Oppression

Today's principal contradiction, here in the United $tates, is the national contradiction — meaning that between oppressed nations and oppressor nations. MIM(Prisons) provides some very provocative questions as to secondary contractions, their influence on or by and in conjunction to the current principal contradiction. Class, gender and nation are all interrelated.(1) Many times, while organizing our efforts and contemplating potential solutions to the principal contradiction, we overlook the secondary and tertiary ones. Such narrow-mindedness oftentimes leads to difficulties, hampering efforts toward resolution. Other times it makes resolving the principal, effectively, impossible. Analogous to penal institutions making it possible to punish a citizenry but impossible to better it due to the irreconcilable contraction between retributive punishment and rehabilitation. This is why reforms consistently fail and prisons persist as a social cancer.

In regards to intersecting strands of oppression, prisons are illustrative of more than pitfalls of narrow-mindedness (i.e. reform of one aspect while leaving the rest intact). Prisons also provide numerous examples of oppression combinations. Interactions of nation and gender oppression are some of the most evident. Penal institutions are inherently nationally oppressive, because they are social control mechanisms allowing capitalism to address its excluded masses. Since the United $tates is patriarchal in practice, prisons over-exaggerate this masculine outlook, creating an ultra-aggressive, chauvinistic subculture.

Intersection occurs oft times when a female staff member is present. Other than the few brave people, most wimmin in prison are regarded as "damsels in distress." Generally speaking (at least in Colorado prisons) a male will accompany a female; though, most males make no effort to do this for other men. Capitalism's undercurrent to such "chivalrous actions" is rooted in wimmin being the weaker, more helpless and vulnerable gender. In prison, machismo culture such is the chauvinist's belief. While many wimmin aid in their inequality by accepting, encouraging, or simply not protesting such "chivalry," brave, independent wimmin experience a form of ostracism — they are derided, an effort to enjoin their conformity. At the same time men are being chivalrous, they sexually objectify females, further demeaning them, reinforcing their second-class status under machismo specifically and, capitalistic patriarchy generally.

Furthermore, there is also the ever-present nation bias (e.g. hyper-sexualizing Latina females, white females should only fraternize with whites). As prisons are "snapshots" of general society, the contradictions — their intersecting and interacting — hold useful material for revolutionary-minded persyns.

Intersection of different oppression strands (as shown above) demonstrates that the resolution of one does not automatically mean resolution of others. For instance, should machismo in prison dissolve, the national oppression will still remain and vice versa. Prisons are an encapsulation of society, meaning, their abolishment will not necessarily translate to class, nation, gender contradiction resolutions throughout society. Although, it is a very good, versatile place to start. Penal institutions are more of an observation laboratory where the effects and affects of contradiction co-mingling manifest. A place to watch, document, analyze, formulate and possibly initiate theory and practice. There is no better way to comprehend oppression than to witness it in action. Nor is there any better way of combating the many oppressions than from the front lines.

Notes: 1. See, MIM Theory 7: Proletarian Feminist Nationalism; MIM Theory 13: Culture in Revolution; MIM Theory 2/3: Gender and Revolutionary Feminism; MIM Theory 11: Amerikkkan Prisons on Trial. Each available for $5 from MIM(Prisons), P.O. Box 40799, San Francisco, CA 94140
chain
[Gender] [Organizing]
expand

Drug Dealer Labeled Sex Offender, Turning Life Around

ULK 61 was very informative to me. I'm 47 years old, and I have what you call street cred. I've been a drug dealer all my life because I didn't see it as a crime, I saw it as an illegal business. I'm currently serving a ten-to-twenty sentence, and all my charges are for drugs except for one.

In 2001, I worked in roofing. When I got to the job site there were no shingles so the boss sent us home early with half a day pay. When I came home, as I started up the stairs, I heard a commotion in my front room where me and my wife sleep. As I opened the door I saw my wife (or ex-wife) naked and a man jumping out the window. I lost my mind, started calling her all type of names and beat on her pretty badly. The neighbors called the cops. When I was given my charges it was rape, burglary, kidnapping, and breaking and entering. What should have been a crime of passion turned into something else. They did a rape kit and it was negative. I had keys to the house, and bills in my name.

I had a public defender because she had all my money. So me being a poor Latino, afraid of the racist justice system, I took a deal of 2 years for sexual battery plus ten years registering as a sex offender. I was evaluated by a professional and was determined that I didn't have a sex problem. Therefore I did not have to take the sex program that a sex offender must take. I've been to prison 4 times after that for possession with intent to deliver and all four times I was evaluated to see if I needed the sex program and every time it's been determined that I do NOT have a sex problem. My problems are with drugs. So my question is, if I do not have a sex problem, why is the state of Pennsylvania still registering me as a sex offender and wants to do it for life?

I want to change my life around but it's a heavy load to have as an older man. If anyone knows how I can get relief, please help me if you can.


MIM(Prisons) responds: This writer underscores our point that labels from the criminal injustice system shouldn't be trusted. But ey also raises an interesting question related to the topic of crimes against the people. Ey writes "I've been a drug dealer all my life because I didn't see it as a crime, I saw it as an illegal business." Drug dealing is harmful to those who do and buy drugs, and their families and community, and so we put it in the category of crimes that are against the people. This is different from, say, robbing a bank, or tax fraud.

It sounds like this comrade now sees the problem with dealing drugs, and wants to turn things around. This is a good example of someone who has great potential to reform and become a productive member of the revolutionary movement. We don't care that ey has a SO label, though we hope this comrade now sees that there is no justification for beating up eir ex-wife. And we can move past the drug dealing if ey has stopped and understands why it's wrong. We care most what ey does with eir life going forward.

chain
[Organizing] [Gender] [ULK Issue 64]
expand

Reformed Thinking on Sex Offenders

I just got done reading ULK 61 and I got to say it opened my eyes to a lot of stuff that I did as a gang member of Aryan Brotherhood in Texas to sex offenders coming into the system. When they came in, me and several other dudes would beat them up to "break them" and then would sell them to the butty bandits due to their crime of being labeled a sex offender.

The system would not attempt to protect them either, due to the label they had on them as a sex offender. So we had free reign to punish them as we seen fit. But nowadays I look back on the stuff that I did and can see the big errors of my ways.

I ran into a dude down in the state hospital that was just about dead of AIDS that he got due to the actions of me and some other dudes breaking him. I was going for breaking my hand in a fight and saw the death wagon pull up and unload two AIDS patients, and one dude seen me and called out my name and asked me if I was still breaking in sex offenders and if so to look at him and see what it causes.

I was like "Dude I do not know you or want to know you either." He told me where I beat him up and sold him, and it blew my mind. I had a lot of hate towards sex offenders when I came into this place and it has mellowed out over the last 34 years that I have been in prison. My baby sister was assaulted by her friend's father, so the issue of sex offenders is personal to me.

When I started in the County Jail beating up sex offenders for something to do, the Sheriff would tell the jailers to put anyone that came into the jail on my tan and tell me in front of the dude what he was in the jail for. I look back on it now and I am coming to the realization that they were using me to punish the dudes that were charged with sexual assault.

One dude, I broke his jaw in two places due to his granddaughter saying he touched her in a private spot. Come to find out it was a lie because she was mad at him for grounding her for the weekend.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not attempting to brag about it, just am showing the length of time and intensity that I have been blinded by the system to do their work, and now I'm starting to understand the system. What made me wake up is one of my brothers got charged with sexual assault/harassment for grabbing his croch and telling a chick to suck is dic- as he left school. Since he made a crude gesture towards her she said she felt violated. He was on a ten-year probation so he got violated for the gesture and came to prison for it. And yes he has to register as a level 1 tier offender due to him being mad about getting kicked out of school for a 3-day period.

Each case is different so you got to look at all of the facts. If you go blindly as I did for years upon years you are no better than the ones you are jumping on, due to the fact that you are siding with the oppressors and are holding down your own people. Yes I am fully aware that there are some sexual offenses that are true crimes and they need all that they get and ten fold more heaped on top of it if they are truly guilty of the crime of sexual assault on a woman or child.

But before you lace up the steeltoe boots and put your pistols on gloves to beat up a sex offender, make sure it's a true crime and one that deserve the punishment that you are fixin to hand out. If not you're just working for the system that you are claiming to work against. You cannot pull both ways at once or you go no place at all.

I used to beat up the dudes, now I try to help them with their cases due to the fact that a lot of them are not able to get help in the law library because they have ask a law clerk to help get a case cite and his first question is "what you charged with?" And he will go to the law books and look up your case, and if you do not pass his smell test he will not help you, or he will tell you the case cite you're asking about is not in the law library, or throw your request slip away and say he never got it at all.

Look at it like this, what if you're with a girl and you're going at it and she says "stop"? If you move forward one more time you have just committed sexual assault.

So before you say it will not happen to you, you got to look at it with your eyes open and see the whole picture and not just what the state wants to show you. So think about all the forms that you may have been labeled a sex offender in the past and then you can get over the stink of the name and start to see the person and not the label that the state has put on a person. Most I can work around because I was a dirty dog in the world and could have been charged a few times too. But the main issue is we need to stop letting the state do our thinking for us and take back our minds from the system. You can handcuff my body but I refuse to let you handcuff my mind any longer.


MIM(Prisons) responds: This writer has learned through practice pretty much everything we've been saying about sex crimes. This is an impressive transformation, and we hope ey has also transformed eir thinking about oppressed nations over many years behind bars.

It's true that a lot of people have committed sex crimes but not been caught. Men are taught to be "dirty dogs" as this writer says. That's why the revolutionary movement will need to do a lot of work reforming thinking and rehabilitating. Not just those with sex charges, but everyone raised in this messed up system. As we discuss in the "Punishment vs. Rehabilitation" article, we can do some of this rehabilitating now, but we will focus our energy and time on those who recognize their mistakes and crimes and want to make a change and committ to serving the people.

chain
[Gender] [ULK Issue 64]
expand

Do Romantic Relationships Build the United Front?

May 2018 — I read ULK 61 and it is a pretty interesting newsletter on a topic that I have never put much thought into. I have to say I do not agree with the portion about "un-muddling the relationships between comrades (i.e. no dating within the org)" in the Sex-Offenders vs. Anti-People Sex Crimes article. I believe this practice would serve no real interest in the organization. I believe it is a form of dis-unity. To make a method of such effective the org would have to segregate the two (men and women). The reason being men and women form relationships naturally. I believe we need to congregate with our women for relationships, build unity, and if unity is a strong point of this organization a rule like that shall be established in this organization.

I do understand why MIM would decide to take that approach, but I see it as going against the inevitable. I believe it would also create secrecy in the org if people were dating and that would cause dishonesty. I believe a better approach would be to recognize the relationship, as to say if the comrades are to date they should be married. Not only would this relationship be recognized by the org, it would be recognized by the state/U.$., further decreasing such allegations of sex crimes. And at the same time the organization would be helping to build and create unity between men and women.

Another reason I believe this approach/practice would be more effective in the organization is because people seem to be more serious about marriage, meaning there just won't be any fraternizing within the organization. If there has to be an appointed licensed priest/preacher or someone to wed the two it should be done so. It, the ceremony, should be done in front of the org. Now it becomes if someone interferes with the relationship man or woman they should be punished/dealt with. Now that the marriage is consensual the sex is consensual. We should not deharmonize the harmony between man and woman. We are trying to build a United Front!


MIM(Prisons) responds: We need to be clear that marriage does not ensure consensual sex. We can't create a utopia outside of the patriarchal culture right now, and so we know that our relationships (including marriages) will still be strongly influenced by that culture. And under the patriarchy sexual relations are inherently unequal regardless of marital status or level of political activism of the people involved.

This writer is correct that people do have a tendency to become romantically involved with people with whom they spend a lot of time. And having a lot of political unity can encourage this romance. We don't share the view that this is naturally just between men and wimmin. It also happens between men and men and between wimmin and wimmin. So separating the people would only stop some romance. There may be other arguments for separating men and wimmin while we battle the patriarchy, but we shouldn't expect this to end romance or sexual assault. The situation in men's prisons across the United $tates is a clear demonstration of this point.

Our main disagreement with this writer is with the idea that we should use romance to build unity. On the factual front, even with the formality of marriage, most relationships don't stay together. This is just a fact of life under the imperialist patriarchy right now. This is the reality we live in. And we know that when relationships end there is a lot of irrational anger (and often rational anger too) that comes with it. So if we're trying to build unity, encouraging romantic relationships is likely to backfire in the majority of cases where the relationship doesn't last. Perhaps we can do better than the average couple with the support of the political organization, but we're still going to have a lot of relationships end. We just don't have the power or reach right now to reverse this fact of patriarchal culture.

In the ULK 61 article this writer responds to we wrote:

"How we handle this process now in our cell structure will be different if a cell has 2 members versus 2,000 members. The process will need to be adapted for different stages of the struggle as well, such as when we have dual power, and then again when the Joint Dictatorship of the Proletariat of the Oppressed Nations has power. And on and on, adapting our methods into a stateless communism.

"Even with policies in place, we have limited means of combating chauvinism, assault allegations and other unforeseen organizational problems endemic to the left. Rather than wave off these contradictions, or put them out of sight (or cover them up, like so many First World-based parties and organizations have done), we need to build institutions that protect those who are oppressed by gender violence."

This is something we need to continue discussing, trying various approaches, and working on the best approaches to ensure the longevity of the anti-imperialist movement.

chain
[Gender] [ULK Issue 65]
expand

Revolutionary Movements Must Include Trans People

"We stand for active ideological struggle because it is the weapon for ensuring unity within the Party and the revolutionary organizations in the interest of our fight. Every communist and revolutionary should take up this weapon." — Comrade Mao, "Combat Liberalism"

Within every class, gender, and nation, trans women are being oppressed and persecuted because of their trans disposition. This has been so within both capitalist and socialist societies, among revolutionaries as among reactionaries.

Many hallmark social/revolutionary movements in America's history had non-supportive regard for trans people. The consciousness was not there yet; revolutionary consciousness evolves by degrees, through years, decades, the same for such movements (and governments) in other countries.

In century 21, both political and revolutionary consciousness are at a much higher frequency. Trans political resistance is occurring across the country (and the world); trans people have become cognizant of the political aspects of their quality of life existence, and are getting politically involved in a revolutionary manner.

The political and revolutionary consciousness evolution of trans people is taking place in America's prisons. In California, the 36 Movement of trans women is politically active against the anti-trans oppression, persecution, and genocide of the prison system for their lives, livelihood and for political power. There is also the right-wing reaction they must contend with on the yards, and, as well, reactionary behavior towards them by left revolutionaries, and by presumed progressive media outlets on the left. People do not become progressive or revolutionary overnight. Anti-trans sentiment is deep among those so afflicted, because putrid bourgeois opinion predominates in American society, and is infectious.

How are the cadre to address such reactionary or quasi-reactionary tendencies within the revolutionary camp? For one, internal indoctrination can put light on the subject, so that new cadre are aware. But so must elder cadre become aware. For another, ideological discussion on trans issues are worthwhile — trans within society/prison, within the revolutionary ranks — discerning among each other and within oneself traces of reactionary inclination and weeding them out, aligning personal in line with revolutionary principles that guide attitudes towards the people, and propagating the new awareness.

By such ideological debate, properly practiced, broader unity will result. This is revolutionary. This is the revolutionary guidance of Mao Thought.

Across the wider spectrum, included is regard for lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and gender nonconforming people.


MIM(Prisons) responds: The transgender question has come out of the closet in recent years. This is a necessary step towards ending gender-based oppression. The question is what bringing the issue to light under capitalist patriarchy will achieve.

We can look back at the gay/lesbian/queer struggles in this country and see how they led to integration of those once separate communities into mainstream Amerika. While white wimmin have always been allies to white men in national oppression, this relationship has only solidified with increasing power of wimmin in Amerikan society. Both of these examples inform our understanding of nation as principal to our struggle against all oppression.

If we look at nation, we also see integrationism though. Today the integration road is presented as a viable option in the United $tates, rather than something you have to fight for. However, with nation, that integration was not complete. The ghettos became more isolated, even though they have since become more dispersed, and the koncentration kamps of course expanded with oppressed nations filling the cages. With the integration of both the relatively gender and nationally oppressed in this country, we did not see improvements for wimmin or oppressed nations overall in the world. So there is a problem with looking just at U.$. society for measuring progress.

The fact that transgender issues have not been a public discussion for as long as other forms of oppression does create the sense that transgender people are the most oppressed, and need the most attention. And this is the conclusion by many advocates of identity politics. As this comrade says, they have faced oppression in all parts of society. However, with our understanding of society within the framework of dialectical materialism we can talk about why nation is principal under imperialism, look at the historical examples of gender struggles in this country, and predict that the transgender struggle is not going to move us toward ending oppression the fastest.

None of that discounts what the comrade says about struggling for the inclusion and acceptance of transgender prisoners, and people in general, in the revolutionary movement. In some ways the prison population was ahead of the curve on this one as the prominence of transgender wimmin in male prisons has made this issue part of daily life for prisoners before many Amerikans began grappling with it. Still, this has not led to an overall overall progressive attitude among male prisoners, in part due to the hyper masculinity that the prison environment engenders.

This is an example of how communists must try to address all issues holding back the revolution, while focusing on the principal contradiction. We join this comrade in calling for ideological discussions around trans issues in mass work. This will foster greater unity within the oppressed nations and among the revolutionary movement of prisoners overall.

chain
[Gender] [Texas]
expand

University Sexism Education Program Attacked

Enclosed is a clipping from the Austin American-Statesman (2018 May 3) I thought pertinent and might be of interest.

Not having first-hand knowledge of the University of Texas (UT) course "MasculinUT," I found it interesting that the reactionary philistines again attacked academia for addressing patriarchal oppression. As far as I'm concerned, conventional notions of masculinity are a societal conditioning of the psyche, ergo, much like a Black persyn ensnared in a eurocentric society, a mind fuck. So, yeah, maybe the yahoos are correct that traditional concepts of what masculinity entails (e.g., violence against wimmin) is a mental health issue, and as such, men need to be subjected to re-conditioning via communist transition. Maybe, like the bourgeoisie under socialism, men will be repressed. Maybe, hell!


MIM(Prisons) responds: The article enclosed, from the Statesman, talks about the UT masculinity education program, which is an awareness campaign formerly run by the University's Counseling and Mental Health Center. Conservatives attacked the program, claiming it treats masculinity as a mental health problem.

In response, the MasculinUT program was moved to Dean of Students, and, in a statement from its website, "the program's original steering committee was reconvened and expanded to provide recommendations and feedback to ensure that the program's mission is clearly defined and fully aligned with its original intent of reducing sexual assault and interpersonal violence."

We're with this comrade in thinking it might not be so bad to think about masculinity as a mental health issue. As long as we're clear that this and many other mental health issues are a product of the capitalist patriarchy. People aren't born being sexist idiots. They are trained to believe that wimmin don't know what they want, to see wimmin as objects, and to view maleness as a sign of superiority. People will need a lot of retraining to overcome a lifetime of patriarchal education.

We don't know what's involved in the UT program so we can't comment on it. But we can say that after the imperialist patriarchy is overthrown we'll have a long period of cultural revolution where we need to re-invent humyn culture and re-educate everyone to see all people as equal. This is about the patriarchy, but also about the oppression of all groups of people over other groups, across the strands of oppression of nation, class and gender. This involve forcibly repressing patriarchal culture and institutions. We hope that forcible repression of half the population (men) will not be necessary, but there will need to be active promotion of feminists into positions of power, and a careful re-consideration of the appropriate interactions between all humyns.

chain
[Gender] [ULK Issue 64]
expand

Notes on Advancing the Struggle Inside: Sex Offenders Revisited

July 2018 — In ULK 61 the contentious topic of sex offenders was discussed with great objectivity (even in certain subjective analyses) and openness. The following will attempt to clarify, expound and expand on some of these positions from my perspective.

I wrote, "Excluding all non-sexual depredations (public urination and such), SOs constitute a dangerous element; more so than murderers because SOs often have more victims, and many of those victims become sexual predators, creating one long line of victimization." As a rejoinder to this comparison, MIM(Prisons) stated: "When someone is murdered in lumpen-criminal violence, often there is retaliatory murder, and subsequent prison time."

While this may prove accurate among lumpen organizations (LOs) and loosely associated persons, this is very far from the truth in society, generally speaking. A majority of people, even a majority of lumpen class, do not resort to such literal "eye-for-an-eye" justice. While there are many (mostly males between 14-22 years old) who do seek retaliatory murders, on the whole they produce a minority to be certain. Just as murderers constitute a noticeable minority of the 2.3-million-plus currently incarcerated through the United States.

Contrarily, sexual predators affect the entire societal composition. They perpetrate crimes against males and females, provoking deep-burrowing psychological problems, and turn many victims into victimizers (not all turn to outright sexual depredation). There is no question murder is irrespective of class, gender, nation, and provokes intense psychological trauma. The difference is not in the severity of the anti-proletariat crime — taking a life or ruining a life — but in the after-effects. To make the argument that murder creates murder in the same, or even similar, manner as sexual victimization creates future victimizers is beyond stretching. It is a patently false premise. Were it even close to the reality of present society, there would be anywhere from 10-50 times more murders and murderers in this country and its prisons.

Not to be crass, but murder is more of a one-two punch knock out. Where sexual depredation is twelve rounds of abuse by Robert Duran with your hands behind your back. Most murderers are not serial killers, which means their victims are family and known associates. Sexual predators habitually prey on strangers who fit their desired victim profile, in addition to relatives, friends, or associates. Murderers are normally incarcerated once arrested. Sexual predators are often times released.

Also it is much more stigmatizing to be a victim of sexual violence — shame, feelings of inferiority, desire to vengeance, self-deprecation — than a murderer's victim. Desire for justice, feelings of powerlessness, and greater stigmatization arises from the criminal injustice system's treatment of sex crime victims. Many are left feeling as if they are the perpetrator instead of the victim. This is why so many sex crimes go unreported. Such is not the case with murders, unless persons decide to seek vigilante justice. Considering the above, it is clear why a more negative perspective is attached to SOs than to murderers. Logically, a murder is traumatic but almost all overcome the event without becoming killers. In the case of sexual victimization, a slim minority overcome the stigma, and more than half become victimizers; whether emotionally, physically, or continue to harm themselves, reliving the victimizations perpetrated upon them.

"Lumpen criminal violence (created and encouraged by selective intervention and neglect by the state) is one of the reasons why 1 in 3 New African men will go to prison at some point in their lifetime." This is undoubtedly true. Although to state such a statistic to disprove the "logic" behind SOs being viewed as pariahs more than murderers is slightly disingenuous. Capitalism is formed in a manner destined to exclude great numbers of people. Mass incarceration is capitalism's answer to this exclusion. This is the manner in which capitalism addresses the lumpen class it creates in order to maintain a steady course on the capitalists' globalization/exploitation road. Crime and violence are incidental to the system that created a mass lumpen class. So, while this does "represent a long line of victimization," it is inherent to capitalism, but sexual depredation is not.

As it relates to imminent or immediate efforts at rehabilitating sexual predators, my meaning was that efforts can be made on an individual basis by revolutionaries who are able to see past label prejudice. Through their efforts, if conducted scientifically, a systematic method can emerge for once the revolution is successful. Practice directs theory and theory is validated in practice, of course. But my overall meaning was and remains that sex crimes will be a problem for capitalism, socialism, or communism. Sexual depredation is a social contagion which transcends borders of politics, gender, economy, class, nationhood and age. Revolutionaries will need to address the problem sooner or later. For those who can be ahead of the curve, they should be. Revolutions need innovative trail blazers as does every department of humynity.


MIM(Prisons) responds: We appreciate this clarification on this writer's article in ULK 61, and find some compelling points here for distinctions between the impact of murders and sexual assaults. Though we still maintain that we will need to reform all who can be reformed, regardless of crimes (conviction or not).

We need to address a few factual questions. The author claims that "SOs habitually prey on strangers who fit their desired victim profile; in addition to relatives, friends, or associates". The reality is that studies of sexual assault have found that around 70%-75% of survivors know their rapist. It is a myth that sexual assault is mostly perpetrated on strangers. This myth serves the racist idea that New Afrikan men are raping white wimmin. And this falsehood has been used to target and persecute New Afrikan men going back to the time of slavery, specifically targeting ones seen as a threat by those in power. So although this is a minor point in the author's essay, we want to clarify the facts.

We want to also address this writer's comment that "sexual depredation is a social contagion which transcends...gender." Sexual assault is one of the most blatant symptoms of a system of gender oppression. It is the exercise of gender power. Sexual assault is a product of the patriarchal system that sets up gender power differences in our society.

And so, we disagree with the author that crime and violence are inherent to capitalism but sexual depredation is not. In the abstract this makes sense: sexual depredation is a result of the patriarchy, a system of gender oppression. Capitalism is a system of class oppression. The two are distinct systems of oppression.

But society has evolved to intertwine class, gender and national oppression so intimately that it is not practical to think we can eliminate one without eliminating the others. Seeing gender oppression as something outside of capitalism suggests we can eliminate gender oppression entirely under capitalism. While we can certainly target aspects of gender inequality and oppression for reform under capitalism, this is similar to enacting reforms to the systems of national oppression. We might improve conditions for individuals within the capitalist system, but the underlying system of oppression will remain.

This doesn't mean we ignore gender oppression right now. We must expose it, and we should demand that it be stopped wherever possible. For instance, fighting against rape in prison is a battle that could reduce the suffering of many prisoners. But we can also see the outcome of state responses to prison rape in the ineffectual and sometimes counter-productive PREA regulations.

With that said, we do agree with this writer that we can work now towards a systematic method to deal with sex offenders and sexual predators. But we will have fewer resources and less power to help these individuals reform now, before we have state power.

We won't reach the stage of communism until we eliminate sex crimes. We disagree with the author's assessment that sex crimes will exist in all systems. Communism is a society without oppression, where all people are equal. We will have to eliminate class, nation and gender oppression before we can achieve a communist society. And so this writer is correct that revolutionaries must address the problem of sex crimes, both sooner and later. As we discuss in the article "On Punishment vs. Rehabilitation," the stage of our struggle will help determine how we deal with those who commit crimes against the people.

chain
[Gender] [ULK Issue 64]
expand

Debating Sex Offenders Becoming Revolutionaries

roseinconcrete

We received a lot of thoughtful responses to Under Lock & Key 61 debating sex offenders. This is a tough topic. It's easy to recognize that our culture encourages abuse of wimmin. And there are many problems with how the criminal injustice system defines sex crimes and selectively prosecutes this crime. But people don't want to condone rape, and many of us have a persynal reaction of horror to sexual predators that makes it hard to think about this objectively.

Regardless of the societal influences, and the unfair definitions and prosecutions, there are a lot of people who have committed sex crimes, and these should not just be ignored or forgiven. This topic got a lot of people thinking about whether or not sex offenders (SOs) can be part of the movement, and if they committed sex crimes, if they can be reformed.

Defining sex crimes

We have all been raised in a culture that promotes sexism and condones gender oppression. We call this system the patriarchy. It's a system where sexy young teen models sell clothes, and TV and movies glorify powerful men and violence against wimmin. This culture colors every relationship we have. We're taught that being a good man means acting manly and strong and never letting a womyn tell you what to do. And we're taught that being a good womyn means submitting to the needs and desires of your man. With this training, we can't expect equality in relationships. And without equality, we can't expect free consent. Not everyone has a gun to their heads when they are asked to consent to sex, but there are a lot of different forms of power and persuasion.

So we're starting out with a messed up system of gender oppression, and then we're trying to define which acts of sexual violation count as coerced (rape) and which are just "normal." One California prisoner wrote:

"I want to comment on the sex offender topic. Yeah it's rough because like the Nevada 17 1/2 yr old dude it's just that easy to get caught up. As adults we're able to date 18-19 year olds as a 40-50 year old.

"I mean if people are going to argue 15 year old and an 18 is different, the question is why/how? If their answer isn't 'I just want my baby girl to be my baby girl a few more years' then their answer is B.S., because that's what it really boils down to.

"Moving on, the sex offender umbrella is too big. Like it was mentioned, a person taking a leak in public is considered a sex offender? We haven't always had toilets, let's get real and go after the real sex offenders — fully adult male/female taking advantage of a child. That's a sex offender! 20, 30, 40 year old trying to sleep with a 13 year old — sex offender! Possession of child pornography — sex offender!"

This writer raises the question of age to define sex crimes. We ask, why is a 20 year old sleeping with a 13 year old rape, but a 20 year old with a 15 year old isn't? Probably because this writer believes a 15 year old is capable of consent but a 13 year old isn't. That's the key question: who has the ability to give consent?

Truly free consent isn't possible from within a system that promotes gender oppression from birth. But that's not a useful answer when trying to define crimes from the revolutionary perspective. And if we're going to attempting to rehab/punish people who have committed sex crimes, we have to decide what is a reasonable level of consent.

For now, we maintain that we should judge people for their actions, not the label they're given by the criminal injustice system. As this comrade from Maryland explains, society creates sexual predators who act in many different ways, but their actions all show us they are counter-revolutionary.

"I was reading one article on sex offenders in ULK 61, and it was talking about how to determine whether they did the crime or not. The thought came to me of judge of character, their interactions with males & females, whether prisoners or C.O.s, and the traces of conversations when they feel comfortable. Even those who don't have sexual offense charges sometimes make you wonder by the way they jerk-off to female C.O.s & female nurses or what they say to them that have you think if they are undercover sex offenders.

"One prisoner went as far as getting the female nurse information off the internet and called them on the jail phone and got (admin) (Administration Segregation). This is the same person that comes back and forth for jerking off to multiple disciplinary segregation terms, but is locked up for a totally different charge. He's a future sex offender, that can't be trusted for help in the revolution not due to a label, but due to his character and interactions when he sees females.

"Then you have the ones that have been locked-up in their teenage years and they're currently in their 30s, and like to chase boys who are easy to manipulate or who want sexual activity. One is big on being a victimizer, but knows and talks a lot of Revolutionary preferences. He has a lot of knowledge but can't be trusted to prevail due to lack of discipline and wanting to continue in his prison rapes & prison sex crimes that he rejoiced in. But he is another one that is not locked up for any sex offenses. Both were juveniles when incarcerated and have been psychologically damaged and lack change & further rehabilitation. Everyone still embraces them in general population and looks past their sexual activities.

"How can people that exploit sexual habits right in clear view of the prisoners be embraced and not looked upon as potential threats to society, families, and fellow prisoners, when you have someone labeled as a sex offender through childhood friendships and has to be sectioned off & outcasted by other prisoners due to the label of sex offender and not background information, the character of the man, their interactions with same sex and opposite sex, and the signs & symbols through their conversation?"

This writer's view is echoed by a comrade in Texas who has come to realize we need to judge people for their actions:

"UFPP is a must! Regardless of what you did to get in prison (rape, rob, murder), I (also a prisoner) only judge you or anyone on how they go forward from this day in prison. I used to work in food service and I would break a serving into fifths for women in prison for killing or abusing children. Then I grew up and got over myself. How do I know they were rightfully convicted and how do I know how they got in this prison life? I don't. We're all in the same spot starting out. What you do from this time forward is your description for me. And people can change. I have."

When we look objectively at how many people, both in prison and in society in general, commit sex crimes, it's pretty depressing. The recent #MeToo movement helped expose just how many sexual predators are in the entertainment industry in particular. And writers like the one above expose individual cases of predators behind bars. This is so common because of a culture that promotes gender inequality. As long as we see wimmin/girls as objects for sexual pleasure we will have a problem with sex crimes. Another prisoner described this pervasive problem in California:

"This letter is in regards to the sex offenders articles in ULK 61. We cannot "always" trust a state to tell us what crimes someone has committed - but most of the time we can. It might not always be so clear, but the majority of the time the person convicted of a sex crime did indeed do it.

"Of the thousands of people I've come across in the SNY prisons I’ve been in, absolutely nobody has claimed his pc 290 case is for urinating in public. The most common is sex with a minor as there is absolutely no thing in the state of California as consensual sex with anyone under age 18. I know this all too well because sex with a teen put me where I'm at.

"There are probably as many different variables that create sex offenders as there are types of sex offenders themselves. The overwhelming factor with the sex offenders I've met in prison (and there's a lot of sex offenders in prison) is drug abuse, especially methamphetamine. It's safe to say that most sex offenders (at least 60-70%) were driven by the effects of meth. There are many in prison who will admit to sex with underage females. Growing up in the housing project of San Francisco's Mission District I knew a lot of adults (mostly men) that had sexual relationships (and even marriages) with teens. It was very common also that the girls my age as a teen carried on with grown men.

"Go to a Latina's traditional 15th birthday celebration and count the amount of males over 20 yrs old. Yes, that is what many are there for: the girls. Do younger girls' parents know about this? Yes, most do. Cinco de Mayo has become another reason for America to party. Latin foods, beers, music, piñatas, etc. We've welcomed with open arms. Are we going to pretend that these 'other' traditions from Latin America don't exist and just continue to tag and store sex offenders or will something be done to address this issue?

This writer makes a good point: lots of sex crime charges are real. Many men have committed these crimes. But there's no need to rely on what the state tells us. In fact this writer demonstrates that people are being honest with em about eir past crimes. We don't gain anything by trusting the criminal injustice system, and we don't need to.

This comrade helps demonstrate our point that sex with teens is condoned by capitalist culture. These cultural influences encourage men to see their behavior taking advantage of wimmin, and pursuing teens, as normal and acceptable. We won't stop this completely until we get rid of the patriarchy and have the power to create a proletarian culture.

Can criminals be reformed?

An important organizing question of today regarding sex offenders is whether or not they can be part of the revolutionary movement. This inspires a lot of debate behind bars. A comrade from Maryland provides some good examples of people becoming revolutionaries in spite of history of anti-people crimes. We agree with eir analysis that everyone who has committed crimes against the people (sex offenders, drug dealers, murderers, etc.) has the potential to reform and be a part of the revolutionary movement. Whether or not we have the resources to help make this happen is discussed in "On Punishment vs Rehabilitation."

"Eldridge Cleaver was incarcerated for rape upon little white girls and was not on Protective Custody, nor was he a victim, but the victimizer. [Cleaver was actually incarcerated for assault, but was open that he had raped wimmin and even attempted to justify it politically. - ULK Editor] Though upon his parole release he worked for a newspaper company until his run-in with Huey Newton at this newspaper company and joined the Black Panther Party to become later down the line a leader within the BPP political organization. James Carr was another that participated in prison rapes even though he grew to become a instrument for the BPP, a body-guard for Huey Newton upon his release, and a prison vanguard alongside George L. Jackson. Basically, saying that in their era they were not faulted by the political group for their past, but were looked upon what they could do in the present and future.

"With what the United States set as standards are only accountable for those who are out of their class and who they don't care about, while their class gets away with such crimes or slapped on the wrist with the least time as possible. They have messed us up psychologically mass media. So even if the people don't know if the crime is true, what the state places upon us as fraud charges, our mindset is automatically it's true cause America says it's true. Just like when we see people on the news wanted for questioning about a crime, we automatically say he did it without knowing.

"Did the Revolutionaries of the 60s, 70s, and 80s not participate in the Anti-People Crimes as modern day even though they were Vanguards for the people and just as conscious as we are. Did they not sell illegal drugs to raise money for court fees & bail fees? Did they not drink alcohol and smoke weed & cigarettes? Did they not graduate to hard drugs? Did they not shoot or stab people in their lifetime? Did they not commit sexual assaults? That's why we are able to learn from their mistake, while also cherishing their great stands of Revolution. So within criticism, criticize all through all eras and let those who want to prove their self do it. If sex offenders, whether guilty or not, started their own organization that was aligned with the same goals, principles, and practices as MIM(Prisons), would you support them or acknowledge their efforts? Do you feel that if a sex offender, guilty or not, got conscious and changed for the better is capable of being a positive tribute to a Revolution?"

On this same topic a Wisconsin prisoner disagrees and sees the example of Eldridge Cleaver as a detriment to the movement overall.

"I personally do not believe there is a place in the movement for sex offenders, and when I say sex offenders I'm referring to those who are in prison for committing sex crimes, not statutory rape, where he's 17 and she's 16 or even if he's 20 and she's 16. I'm, talking about un-consentual, outright rape of women, men and children. I don't have any affinity for those who rape prisoners or prison female officers and staff.

"A lot of people bring up Eldridge Cleaver to support the argument of reform for rapists, where to me Eldridge was not a true revolutionary, he helped bring down the BPP and his mistreatment of Kathleen Cleaver, Elaine Brown and others was egregious at best and outright barbaric at worst. I don't knock those who have compassion and believe in reform for sex offenders, I'm just not one of them."

While we disagree with this writer's statement that SOs can't be reformed, we agree that embracing those who promote gender oppression because of their correct line on national oppression can be very dangerous for a revolutionary movement. The Black Panther Party struggled with gender oppression, but in many ways was ahead of other movements and organizations of their day. This doesn't mean they got it all right, but we have to judge people and movements in the context of their struggle.

Finally, Legion writes compellingly about the potential for rehabilitation of SOs and also offers a framework for undertaking this work.

"So I'm sitting here eating a bowl of cereal and digesting ULK 61 and comrade El Independista made some valid points and MIM(Prisons) dissented. See when we sparked this debate we were struggling with starting a NLO consisting of comrades who have fucked up jackets who are willing to put pride, ego, individualistic patriarchal thoughts and practices to the wayside forming a column of revolutionaries who are given a chance to show and prove that the state was wrong and that U-C-U works for all instead of some. Answering El Independista's questions of possible solutions isolation, ostracization, extermination may I build?

"First and foremost as a revolutionary raised in the game I'd rather deal with a SO than a snitch or a jailhouse thief. Why? Because in most cases the SO can be re-educated if given the ability to perform. If a potential comrade has been framed by the state who will hear him out. He's isolated like the sex offender island in Washington State off of puget sound. Ostracization is another word for shun if the SO shuns his/her anti-people conviction and uses unity-criticism-unity to combat the patriarchy and upholds the merits of a drafted constitution along with personal U-C-U known as self-criticism you can begin to mold revolutionaries who ostracize themselves. Then there is extermination, another word for ending re-education self-critique and revolutionary bent will cause an ill (as in sick) blow to the injustice system. It's all or none. And no, I'm not harboring cho-mos and rapos, just willing to do the work to see us free all of us. For example, if a column of reformed SOs took up a revolutionary mindset and put said mindset into practice one would exterminate a whole under represented class of people.

"In California the Penal Code 226(a) is any sex crime. 266(h-j) have to do with pimping and pandering, 288 is a molester, 290 is the required registration code. Most kidnappers have to register for life. If you're a John you have to register and if you're a prostitute you have to register. If you opt into a shoot out and a child was involved you have to register, and child endangerment is a sex crime. As well as rape, peeing on the side walk, flashing. In prison all these cases get 'P' coded which prohibits the captive from ever being level 1 where there is minimal politics, and forces one to live in enclosed structures with secure doors AKA cell living. This leaves level "P" coded prisoners in 3 and 4 yards. These yards are political, whether GP or SNY there are politics. And on these yards you have folks with a knack for praying on the weak, creating a pattern of sexual abuse. Just look at any day room wall you'll see the # for the PREA hot-line and a slogan that says 'no means no and yes is not allowed.'

"People, we have to prepare for the white wolf invasion. You can't bully the SO problem away. You have to be a social scientist and commentator and build institutions that collapse the structure. And to answer MIM(prison), most SOs are on SNY yards and you have these snitch gangs who look to isolate, ostracize and eliminate "threats." Most SOs aren't rats, hell most aren't even criminals, no rap sheet only accusations. But these "gangsters" need a common enemy, and an easy target is the SO. As a 'do what's best-ist' I would, if given the platform to do so, launch the wolf collective and invite all who read ULK to join, not as a member but as a witness to the scientific display of revolutionary conduct. I do this to sacrifice self for the masses.

"Start with self-critique and a solid understanding of your errors.
Make serious revolutionary action your priority
Honor and respect all human beings' dignity
Never go backwards in thought walk and push
Stand all the way up for what is righteous and do what's leftover
You will be judged by your political work and political line.

"You might think I'm crazy or nuts but I have 36 nuts and bolts that say otherwise. The mathematics makes sense to turn nuts to plugs you plug in nuts meaning you become the change you want to see, and if I have to build the collective brick by brick stone by stone I will. I'm a convict first for all the would-be haters, but I think the time has come to form an infection on the skin of the beast."

chain
[Gender] [ULK Issue 65]
expand

Response to MIM critique of Soledad Brother

I don't agree with the idea of Jackson being a homophobe by stating that unmarried white women are left to become prostitutes, nuns, and/or lesbians; I don't find it derogatory either. I don't agree or disagree with his statement. I actually have no judgement on that idea. I don't understand why MIM says it's homophobic and derogatory.


MIM(Prisons) responds: The MIM review of Soledad Brother we sent this comrade with a copy of the book includes this critique:

"The first part of the book, mostly letters to his mother and father, is not very political. Jackson uses many sexist stereotypes in this section, often to criticize his mother for failing in his brother's and his own education. He says, for example, that unmarried white women are left to become prostitutes, nuns and lesbians (p. 45). While it is true that economic forces put more pressure on unmarried women (the fastest growing population in poverty are women and children), Jackson's stereotype is homophobic and derogatory.

"Much of what could be criticized as sexist in Jackson's writing is left as ambiguous. He says that 'The white theory of 'the emancipated woman' is a false idea' (p. 46), which is an economic reality of Amerikan capitalism, but no context is given. To his credit he does explain that Black women are the backbone of the family (p. 74)."

The George Jackson reference is as follows:

"In the society of our fathers and in the civilized world today, women feel it their obligation to be ever yielding and obedient to their men. Life is purposely made simple for them because of their nature, and they are happy. When the women outnumber the men in the black societies, the men take as many wives as they can afford, and care for them all equally. In the white for some nebulous reason the men can take only one... the rest are left to become prostitutes, nuns, or lesbians."

The beginning of the quote is perhaps the more damning part, positing that wimmin have a simpler nature than men and therefore are happy serving them. We hope you don't agree with that part. The homophobia is perhaps more subtle, but Jackson is clearly pointing to these three options as being not good, and praising Black men for saving Black wimmin from such fates — having sex in exchange for money/things, not being able to have sex, or having to have sex with wimmin instead.

The grain of righteous truth in the Jackson quote is that white society had more fully succumbed to capitalist individualism, so that wimmin are more often left to fend for themselves in situations that are not conducive to meeting their needs. But Jackson contrasts this with the paternalist assumption that wimmin need to be taken care of by husbands in order to survive, suggesting that polagamy is a selfless sacrifice by men. The unique struggle of wimmin under capitalism is a result of the intersection of the patriarchy and capitalism, not about wimmin needing husbands to survive.

chain