Dear Dr. Progressive

web posted December 11, 2000

Dear Dr. Progressive is a new column designed to give advice to confused and aspirant radicals in the post-communist era. If you have any questions for Dr. Progressive, write Jamie Glazov at jglazov@home.com.

Dear Dr. Progressive:

I grew up on a tobacco farm, but my family now grows vegetable produce and sells it at a trendy farmer's market in a very liberal section of Washington, DC. Our produce is not "organic" and we often come under attack from our customers who accuse us of poisoning children and polluting the environment. How can I make them understand that agricultural chemicals have vastly increased the world's food production without increasing the land under till, and that EPA, FDA, and USDA approved chemicals are far safer for consumers than the contaminated manure organic farmers use on their crops? I try to discuss the matter tactfully, but since the customers have majored in liberal arts, they don't have the background in chemistry, ecology, or agriculture necessary to understand, and either we end up in a heated argument, or they just give me a perplexed stare.

Sincerely,
Broughton Spence
Calvert County, Maryland

Dear Broughton,

M-hm. Why you even bother arguing with these people is beyond me. How much time would you spend trying to convince a member of the Flat Earth Society that the earth is a sphere? Look, next time these people start chastising you, just mumble things like, "whatever" or "yeh, yeh". Better yet, if you want to act like a good leftist, pretend that you agree with them and that you are going through a stage of profound guilt. Say things like, "I know, I know" with a pained expression on your face while they are reprimanding you. Hang your head in shame, bite your bottom lip and shake your head in despair. Fake tears for the full effect. Even get into a fetal position under the cash register and start convulsing in violent gyrations. Pretend you are having a nervous breakdown. The oppression of global capitalism has finally broken you. After the liberal-artsy customers leave, have howl with your co-workers and get back to work.

Dear Dr. Progressive,

Do you think it is a good idea for homosexual teachers and activists to have confidential gay club meetings, conferences and sleep overs with minor children like they do in the State of Barney Frank? Public school and State Education officials say that parents can trust these adult sex activists not to molest other people's children, but I have my doubts. Am I suffering from that dreaded mental illness - homophobia?

Thank you,
Rosie Thompson
Newton, Ma.

Dear Rosie,

I don't know so much about the State of Barney Frank. Are you making this up? If you are, you better watch out because I will look into the facts and if this isn't for real I will never answer another one of your questions. I deal with facts, with straight facts and nothing but the facts.

Anyway, look, if you want to be a good progressive then get your head together. Let's get one thing straight: homophobia is not a mental illness, it is a social construct imposed by heterosexist and patriarchal elites. By stigmatizing and marginalizing homosexuals, homophobic male elites are able to objectify masculinity according to their own definitions and, therefore, enforce strict and confined gender roles upon the society. In this way, the dominant power structure is able to keep women segregated within a subordinate sphere (i.e. the nuclear family and the home). That is why this society always somehow assumes that women are supposed to be "caregivers" for their children. It is exactly in this way that women are locked within oppressive boundaries in society. They are made to believe that they have choice, when in fact what is actually happening is the negation of choice.

All because women bear children does not mean that they should take care of them. Yet this is exactly the kind of hogwash that capitalist society tries to force upon women. The only way out of this enslavement is for mothers to simply refuse to give love to their babies the moment they are born. This way women can fight the capitalist pressure to become caregivers. Mothers should just ignore the babies and by no means hug or kiss them. They should especially refrain from breast-feeding them, since empirical evidence suggests that this process is crucial in giving affirmation to the child and in cementing the emotional bonds between mother and child. By avoiding breast feeding, along with hugging and kissing the child, as well as giving any other kind of emotional and physical support, the mother can avoid many future expectations from the child for her love and care. This will liberate her from the confines that patriarchal capitalism builds within the institution of the nuclear family and the domestic sphere. Don't bother asking me about the fate of the child and his/her psychological and emotional well-being. Stay focused on the class struggle and the liberation of women from the chains of capitalist patriarchy!

Mothers should basically just feed their babies with the bottle, but in a very calcified and stone-hearted manner. It is better not to cuddle the children at all, and to just let them lay somewhere while they have the bottle. In this way, mothers can free themselves completely from global capitalism's socially constructed and oppressive "caregiving" role.

By following this advice, women can set their own standards for what role to play in the "family" and society at large. Actually, it's just better for women not to have any children at all, since then they will not reproduce labour for the capitalists to exploit. This will mean that within a few generations there will be no people left on the planet. But hey, at least there will be no women that will be confined to the home.

I hope I have answered your question. This is all connected to the issue of homosexuality because heterosexual elites impose homophobia out of the desire to segregate women to a subordinate sphere. If homosexuality was accepted as a moral and cultural equivalent to heterosexuality, then the definition of masculinity would change, and therefore gender roles would be reappraised. This is very much against the fascist elite's interest.

What I am trying to explain to you is that what is happening (as you allege) in Barney Frank's State sounds like the process of social justice because, if homosexuality is forced upon children, then the chances are higher that we can destroy the society's system of imposed heterosexuality and finally liberate the human race from tyrannical gender roles (i.e. why is it that women have to get pregnant and not the men! Down with capitalism!). It is obvious that gender roles are socially constructed. Do you really think that women would have menstrual cycles and be burdened with bearing children if it wasn't for the sneaky way that capitalists construct their system of domination and subjugation? Come on, let's get with it. Capitalism's gotta go. Let's be all be good faithful progressives and hijack the Nazi Gestapo's tactics while sugar coating them with the label of fraternity and equality for all! It works every time!

Other related articles: (open in a new window)

Current Issue

Archive Main | 2000

E-mail ESR


Home

© 1996-2024, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.