From Brian=Callahan%MT%DFCI@RHYS.DFCI.HARVARD.EDU Wed Jun  8 12:34:32 1994
Received: from RHYS.DFCI.HARVARD.EDU by fido.wps.com (8.6.5/wps.com-hackery)
	id FAA06319; Wed, 8 Jun 1994 05:34:30 -0700
Message-Id: <199406081234.FAA06319@wps.com>
Received: by RHYS.DFCI.HARVARD.EDU with VINES ; Tue,  7 Jun 94 21:40:36 EDT
Date: Tue,  7 Jun 94 21:27:39 EDT
From: Brian=Callahan%MT%DFCI@RHYS.DFCI.HARVARD.EDU
Subject: Means of Reproduction
To: deke@fido.wps.com
Cc: 
Status: OR

Comments by:       Brian Callahan@MT@DFCI
Forwarded to:      smtp[deke@fido.wps.com]
Comments:      

So what do you think?


   -------------------------- [Original Message] -------------------------      
I just got some info on the IWW, and I found myself in agreement with just 
about everything barring one statement.  The declaration of the Bay Area 
chapter outlined their belief in the right of women to control their own 
bodies, in particular to have the right to choose abortion.  I fully agree 
with this.  However, the declaration ended with the stattement that, juust as 
workers should control the means of production, so too should women control 
the means of reproduction.  Now, the means of reproduction for humans are not 
limited to women's bodies.  If women were to control the means of 
reproduction, this would necessitate their control over male genitalia as well
as the female body.  I cannot agree with this.  Let's not let our enthusiasm 
cloud our reason.  I would urge the chapter to modify this statement. 

From deke Wed Jun  8 18:02:31 1994
Received: from localhost by fido.wps.com (8.6.5/wps.com-hackery)
	id LAA06754; Wed, 8 Jun 1994 11:01:22 -0700
From: deke (Deke Motif Nihilson)
Message-Id: <199406081801.LAA06754@wps.com>
Subject: Re: Means of Reproduction
To: Brian=Callahan%MT%DFCI@RHYS.DFCI.HARVARD.EDU
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 1994 11:01:22 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: deke (Deke Motif Nihilson)
In-Reply-To: <199406081234.FAA06319@wps.com> from "Brian=Callahan%MT%DFCI@RHYS.DFCI.HARVARD.EDU" at Jun 7, 94 09:27:39 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 4562      
Status: OR

> 
> Comments by:       Brian Callahan@MT@DFCI
> Forwarded to:      smtp[deke@fido.wps.com]
> Comments:      
> 
> So what do you think?
> 
> 
>    -------------------------- [Original Message] -------------------------      
> I just got some info on the IWW, and I found myself in agreement with just 
> about everything barring one statement.  The declaration of the Bay Area 
> chapter outlined their belief in the right of women to control their own 
> bodies, in particular to have the right to choose abortion.  I fully agree 
> with this.  However, the declaration ended with the stattement that, juust as 
> workers should control the means of production, so too should women control 
> the means of reproduction.  Now, the means of reproduction for humans are not 
> limited to women's bodies.  If women were to control the means of 
> reproduction, this would necessitate their control over male genitalia as well
> as the female body.  I cannot agree with this.  Let's not let our enthusiasm 
> cloud our reason.  I would urge the chapter to modify this statement. 
> 

Well, I guess it really comes down to definitions...

In this, as in so many other cases, I can speak here only for myself (and 
anyone who happens to agree with me, of course). As far as I'm 
concerned, though, genitalia is not the means of reproduction-- genitalia 
is the means of orgasm! even were I heterosexual, I would have no 
interest in reproducing humans with my orgasms. There are enough humans 
on this planet, and more where we came from. At the risk of sloganeering, 
I fuck to come, not to conceive!!!

Or rather, not to reproduce. And there's the rub (ahem...).

Let's look at this through more of an industrial unionist kinda 
perspective. Even if you credit the genitalia as the source of eggs and 
semen, both are mere raw materials, *resources*, and most eggs and sperm 
cells will never become more people, even if the mandatory-breeding crowd 
were to get their way (which, I assure, will never happen as long as I'm 
drawing breath! As I said, I only speak for me, but doubt I'm the only 
one who feels this way... ANYway).

The role of the working class in society is to gather raw materials AT A 
POINT OF PRODUCTION, and render said materials into USEFUL THINGS 
(PRODUCTS). Eggs and sperms, human ones, aren't WORTH much in and of 
themselves, they must be rendered into an (arguably) useful human at a 
POINT OF PRODUCTION, which in terms of the issue we've set out to 
discuss, is NEITHER the vagina NOR the penis, but the WOMB. A womb is 
owned by the woman in which it is located, and rightfully so I might add 
(another argument for personal property; the collectivist model of 
property ownership breaks down on the level of human organs. Anarchism 
can deal with this microlevel, and arguably communism can't. But I digress).

Why should a woman be FORCED to produce a baby from her point of 
(re)production? Is that not the same, on a smaller scale, as the national 
guard enforcing a government's refusal to allow a picket line, a REFUSAL 
TO WORK? Slave labor is abhorrent to any basic notion of human rights and 
dignity, let alone civil liberties, and all waged (and yes, salaried too) 
labor is slave labor. The I.W.W. is committed to the abolition of FORCED 
PRODUCTION for the benefit of the ruling class, and so it makes perfect 
sense that we categorically oppose FORCED REPRODUCTION, as it serves to 
enslave women by making them (re)produce children they don't want, so the 
ruling class can draft them into armies or, by using their poverty 
against them, compel them to scab on each other. That kinda surplus is 
called PROFIT, and indeed, who does overpopulation PROFIT? The I.W.W. 
believes in production for need, not for profit...

I know I sorta blended two issues here, especially in the above 
paragraph. But maybe just maybe, that's a (relatively) unique 
contribution the IWW can make to the awareness of the issues involved. 
Abortion is not a matter of choosing whether to let RAW MATERIALS 
"live" or not, but rather, is a matter of choosing when and where to 
(re)produce how much of what. The IWW has always maintained that this 
decision belongs alone to the WORKERS WHO DO THE WORK. By logical 
extension, this is a militant pro-choice stand, and perhaps it is no 
accident that the IWW has a long, proud, and for many decades *singular* 
history of strong women's leadership of, and empowerment in, a general 
organization like we are...

For a world without bigots and bosses, 
--Deke Nihilson, x341697
S.F. IWW


From deke@wps.com Wed Jun  8 18:13:22 1994
Received: from localhost by fido.wps.com (8.6.5/wps.com-hackery)
	id LAA06787; Wed, 8 Jun 1994 11:13:21 -0700
From: deke (Deke Motif Nihilson)
Message-Id: <199406081813.LAA06787@wps.com>
Subject: Re: Means of Reproduction (fwd)
To: iww-list, bacorr-list
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 1994 11:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 4756      
Status: OR

> > Comments by:       Brian Callahan@MT@DFCI
> > Forwarded to:      smtp[deke@fido.wps.com]
> > Comments:      
> > 
> > So what do you think?
> > 
> > 
> >    -------------------------- [Original Message] -------------------------      
> > I just got some info on the IWW, and I found myself in agreement with just 
> > about everything barring one statement.  The declaration of the Bay Area 
> > chapter outlined their belief in the right of women to control their own 
> > bodies, in particular to have the right to choose abortion.  I fully agree 
> > with this.  However, the declaration ended with the stattement that, juust as 
> > workers should control the means of production, so too should women control 
> > the means of reproduction.  Now, the means of reproduction for humans are not 
> > limited to women's bodies.  If women were to control the means of 
> > reproduction, this would necessitate their control over male genitalia as well
> > as the female body.  I cannot agree with this.  Let's not let our enthusiasm 
> > cloud our reason.  I would urge the chapter to modify this statement. 
> > 

*****And Deke says...

> 
> Well, I guess it really comes down to definitions...
> 
> In this, as in so many other cases, I can speak here only for myself (and 
> anyone who happens to agree with me, of course). As far as I'm 
> concerned, though, genitalia is not the means of reproduction-- genitalia 
> is the means of orgasm! even were I heterosexual, I would have no 
> interest in reproducing humans with my orgasms. There are enough humans 
> on this planet, and more where we came from. At the risk of sloganeering, 
> I fuck to come, not to conceive!!!
> 
> Or rather, not to reproduce. And there's the rub (ahem...).
> 
> Let's look at this through more of an industrial unionist kinda 
> perspective. Even if you credit the genitalia as the source of eggs and 
> semen, both are mere raw materials, *resources*, and most eggs and sperm 
> cells will never become more people, even if the mandatory-breeding crowd 
> were to get their way (which, I assure, will never happen as long as I'm 
> drawing breath! As I said, I only speak for me, but doubt I'm the only 
> one who feels this way... ANYway).
> 
> The role of the working class in society is to gather raw materials AT A 
> POINT OF PRODUCTION, and render said materials into USEFUL THINGS 
> (PRODUCTS). Eggs and sperms, human ones, aren't WORTH much in and of 
> themselves, they must be rendered into an (arguably) useful human at a 
> POINT OF PRODUCTION, which in terms of the issue we've set out to 
> discuss, is NEITHER the vagina NOR the penis, but the WOMB. A womb is 
> owned by the woman in which it is located, and rightfully so I might add 
> (another argument for personal property; the collectivist model of 
> property ownership breaks down on the level of human organs. Anarchism 
> can deal with this microlevel, and arguably communism can't. But I digress).
> 
> Why should a woman be FORCED to produce a baby from her point of 
> (re)production? Is that not the same, on a smaller scale, as the national 
> guard enforcing a government's refusal to allow a picket line, a REFUSAL 
> TO WORK? Slave labor is abhorrent to any basic notion of human rights and 
> dignity, let alone civil liberties, and all waged (and yes, salaried too) 
> labor is slave labor. The I.W.W. is committed to the abolition of FORCED 
> PRODUCTION for the benefit of the ruling class, and so it makes perfect 
> sense that we categorically oppose FORCED REPRODUCTION, as it serves to 
> enslave women by making them (re)produce children they don't want, so the 
> ruling class can draft them into armies or, by using their poverty 
> against them, compel them to scab on each other. That kinda surplus is 
> called PROFIT, and indeed, who does overpopulation PROFIT? The I.W.W. 
> believes in production for need, not for profit...
> 
> I know I sorta blended two issues here, especially in the above 
> paragraph. But maybe just maybe, that's a (relatively) unique 
> contribution the IWW can make to the awareness of the issues involved. 
> Abortion is not a matter of choosing whether to let RAW MATERIALS 
> "live" or not, but rather, is a matter of choosing when and where to 
> (re)produce how much of what. The IWW has always maintained that this 
> decision belongs alone to the WORKERS WHO DO THE WORK. By logical 
> extension, this is a militant pro-choice stand, and perhaps it is no 
> accident that the IWW has a long, proud, and for many decades *singular* 
> history of strong women's leadership of, and empowerment in, a general 
> organization like we are...
> 
> For a world without bigots and bosses, 
> --Deke Nihilson, x341697
> S.F. IWW
> 
> 


-- 

From Brian=Callahan%MT%DFCI@RHYS.DFCI.HARVARD.EDU Wed Jun  8 23:45:30 1994
Received: from RHYS.DFCI.HARVARD.EDU by fido.wps.com (8.6.5/wps.com-hackery)
	id QAA07312; Wed, 8 Jun 1994 16:45:29 -0700
Message-Id: <199406082345.QAA07312@wps.com>
Received: by RHYS.DFCI.HARVARD.EDU with VINES ; Wed,  8 Jun 94 17:59:22 EDT
Date: Wed,  8 Jun 94 17:35:40 EDT
From: Brian=Callahan%MT%DFCI@RHYS.DFCI.HARVARD.EDU
Subject: Reproduction
To: deke@fido.wps.com
Cc: 
Status: OR

As you say, it's difficult to sustain an analogy between the means of 
industrial production and the means of human reproduction (perhaps this is a  
sufficient reason in itself for excluding just such an analogy in the stateme 
of the Bay Area chapter), but I wouldn't regard the human genitalia as merely 
raw materials any more than I would classify a worker's hands as such.  Both 
are parts of the human body that are necessary for reproduction and production
respectively.  While it is undoubtedly true that the genitalia has functions 
(some near and dear to my heart) other than merely reproducing, the same is 
true of the hands and eyes of workers (I'm not using mine right now for the 
coding that is my function as a worker).  This depersonalization of the worker
tends to lead to the frequently held belief that labor just another commodity 
to be supplied along with metal and electricity in manufacture of widgets.
I'm arguing the same should be true of reproduction.  The means of 
reproduction are controlled by both the male and the female.  The womb by 
itself is not sufficient for reproduction.  If you exclude the delivery of the
sperm to the egg( an elaborate bit of labor by all accounts), you could just 
as easlily exclude the labor of the miner and the truck-driver in delivering 
the raw materials to the factory.  

I would never say that women should be forced to reproduce.  Their bodies are 
their own, just as the hands and eyes of the workers are their own.  But so too
are the bodies of men their own, and they play an integral (a necessary but 
not sufficient) role in the process of reproduction.  How about: "Individuals 
should control the means of REPRODUCTION," a more accurate and, I think, more 
inclusive statement.


From deke Thu Jun  9 00:05:24 1994
Received: from localhost by fido.wps.com (8.6.5/wps.com-hackery)
	id RAA07350; Wed, 8 Jun 1994 17:04:17 -0700
From: deke (Deke Motif Nihilson)
Message-Id: <199406090004.RAA07350@wps.com>
Subject: Re: Reproduction
To: Brian=Callahan%MT%DFCI@RHYS.DFCI.HARVARD.EDU
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 1994 17:04:16 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: deke (Deke Motif Nihilson)
In-Reply-To: <199406082345.QAA07312@wps.com> from "Brian=Callahan%MT%DFCI@RHYS.DFCI.HARVARD.EDU" at Jun 8, 94 05:35:40 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2142      
Status: OR

Yes, but... if creating a baby out of sperm and egg is a job, then the 
male role is equivalent to showing up at the company picnic. Having an 
orgasm might be "work", but the *real* work comes from carrying the 
resultant fertilized egg for 9 or so months, going through "labor" (which 
not only doesn't include the point of conception in the function it 
describes, but is also roughly the equivalent of passing a watermelon 
through one's bowel, according to my mom, who would know), and then 
caring for it for *at least* 18 years. Also, I don't hear of many men 
getting abandoned with the baby when mom got bummed out on the scene, 
though I'm sure it happens and whatta drag when it does. Ask any single 
working-class mother, trying to raise a child (or more) with a McDonald's 
job...

If men had the option of carrying the child, I might be more persuaded by 
your argument. Also, as a faggot, I certainly agree with you that 
everyone should have decision-making control over their genitalia. That 
includes choosing condoms (or vasectomies), oral/genital contact, the 
decriminalization of sodomy, and any of many, many other choices. What 
I'm uncomfortable with about your stated objection to the SFGMB position 
on freedom of reproductive choice, perhaps, is that logically developed, 
it would seem to give a man the power to compel a woman to carry his baby,
including after he's made *bad* choices (or more often, simply ignored 
the responsibilities connected with his behavioral choices), and 
especially based on dubious belief structures that most primarily 
preserve male domination over women (such as christianity, especial;ly in 
its more virulent forms). This kind of situation is not only all too 
common, but indeed is an integral component of the "war on women" (take, 
for example, all these recent attacks from the right on "single welfare 
mothers". Code words or what?)

The issue of choice, in short, is far larger than abortion. But without 
the right of women to choose abortion *in and of their own lives*, 
freedom of choice is naught but a sham and a lie for us *all*.

In Solidarity,
--Deke
x341697
 

From tburghardt@igc.apc.org Thu Jun  9 16:34:32 1994
Received: from mail.igc.apc.org by fido.wps.com (8.6.5/wps.com-hackery)
	id JAA10456; Thu, 9 Jun 1994 09:34:31 -0700
Received: from igc.apc.org by mail.igc.apc.org with SMTP (8.6.9/Revision: 1.27 )
	id JAA02519; Thu, 9 Jun 1994 09:33:54 -0700
Received: by igc.apc.org (8.6.9/Revision: 1.161 )
	id JAA26347; Thu, 9 Jun 1994 09:33:48 -0700
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 09:33:48 -0700
From: Tom Burghardt <tburghardt@igc.apc.org>
Message-Id: <199406091633.JAA26347@igc.apc.org>
To: deke@fido.wps.com, sciww@fido.wps.com, vad@fido.wps.com
Subject: Production/Reproduction
Status: OR

Dear Comrades,
     Though not a Wobbly, I am a class conscious techno-prole and
an anarcho-Marxist.  To enter the fray re:  the issue of women
controlling the "means of reproduction," I think there's a
conceptual problem here.
     First, transferring the analogy of worker's control and
self-management of society to "women controlling the means of
reproduction," is a fallacy.  It's mechanistic theorizing at its
worst, in my opinion.   
     While communists, anarchists and syndicalists
unconditionally fight for women's right to control their bodies,
determining the social, economic, and personal conditions under
which SHE DECIDES whether to have children or not, these
decisions are not, strictly speaking, related to the "blind
forces of production," in Marxist terms.  
     I think it has always been the great theoretical failure of
North American communism/anarchism to simply transfer economic
concepts to the SOCIAL SPHERE.  After all, workers are not ONLY
workers, but human beings for whom TIME and DESIRE (robbed from
us at the point of production through the extraction of surplus
value by CAPITAL, a brutal expropriation of our LIVES for
PROFIT), resonates if only through its negative expression -- the
ABSENCE of TIME to DESIRE.  
     When we create false analogies -- "means of production/means
of reproduction" -- we are falling into an ideological trap
determined by those who have created THE RULES OF THE GAME
governing DAILY LIFE.
     Also, we find ourselves, strictly speaking, applying
mechanical concepts to the sphere of DESIRE/EROTICISM.  I don't
know about you but for myself the EROTIC is ANYTHING but
RATIONAL!  I WOULDN'T WANT IT ANY OTHER WAY!  
     So, what does any of this mean?  It means, in my view, that
we need to RECONCEPTUALIZE what it actually is we're after.  When
we make REVOLUTION, it is not merely the means of PRODUCTION that
the proletariat will EXPROPRIATE, but the radical content of our
LIVES as we re-invent the quotidian.  For me, this means
recreating ENTIRELY what it means to be male/female,
straight/queer or any other emblematic expression of desire in
between.   
     While we continue to fight on the front lines to smash the
reactionary bigots who would enslave our comrades to their
reprehensible CODES OF CONDUCT, (which by the way, govern far
more than having babies, but constellate the entire universe of
right-wing "traditional family values" in the service of the
STATE), let's also jettison 19th century mechanistic thought as
well.  PEOPLE ARE NOT MACHINES!                                  
     The genitalia are not "means of production" to be
expropriated, but constitute ONE aspect and ONE expression of OUR
DESIRE to LIVE WILD OR DIE!
 
Tom
 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
     Annihilate forever all that could one day destroy your work. 
                                     -- D. A. F. Sade    
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
     
     

From deke Thu Jun  9 19:33:46 1994
Received: from localhost by fido.wps.com (8.6.5/wps.com-hackery)
	id MAA10971; Thu, 9 Jun 1994 12:28:45 -0700
From: deke (Deke Motif Nihilson)
Message-Id: <199406091928.MAA10971@wps.com>
Subject: Re: Production/Reproduction
To: tburghardt@igc.apc.org (Tom Burghardt)
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 12:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: deke (Deke Motif Nihilson), sciww (Santa Cruz IWW), vad (Crys-Vad Hyphus)
In-Reply-To: <199406091633.JAA26347@igc.apc.org> from "Tom Burghardt" at Jun 9, 94 09:33:48 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 556       
Status: O

Oh, I know that Tom! (No, *really*!)

Unfortunately, most Marxoids simply *refuse* to see *anything* in any 
other than *mechanical* terms (also, is that "material dialecticism"? 
ANYway...)

I hate to be reduced to forcing living ideas into dead-machine rhetoric. 
Unfortunately, on the left, this is still too all-necessary a step-- 
without it, comrades don't *get it* and the front lines get lonely...

(Notice how I tried to work in "genitals for pleasure, not reproduction"...)


Your Comrade in the Liberation of Desire
FOR ITS OWN SAKE!!!!
--Deke


From Brian=Callahan%MT%DFCI@RHYS.DFCI.HARVARD.EDU Fri Jun 10 19:07:05 1994
Received: from RHYS.DFCI.HARVARD.EDU by fido.wps.com (8.6.5/wps.com-hackery)
	id MAA14109; Fri, 10 Jun 1994 12:06:59 -0700
Message-Id: <199406101906.MAA14109@wps.com>
Received: by RHYS.DFCI.HARVARD.EDU with VINES ; Fri, 10 Jun 94 13:20:02 EDT
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 94 13:12:44 EDT
From: Brian=Callahan%MT%DFCI@RHYS.DFCI.HARVARD.EDU
Subject: re: Re: Reproduction
To: deke@fido.wps.com
Cc: 
X-Status: 
Status: OR

No, no, you misunderstand mean.  I'm merely saying that the means of 
reproduction are actually divided between the two sexes.  I'm advocating the 
right of an individual to control the means of reproduction that are part of 
her (or his) body.  This could never logically lead to men having control over
women's bodies, that would be a direct contradiction of the principle.  I'm 
totally in favor of women having the right to choose abortion.  It's just that
the statement by Bay Area chapter was saying something different than that.  
This was probably inadvertant, but imprecision of language is a great danger 
for an organization that seeks to persuade others.

