> She's "theorizing" the lesbian movement? How does she test her
> "theories"? And how does this make her *ideas*, in contrast to her
> subject, novel? Sure, she's used new (big and obscure) words, but
> when you unravel what is there, there's nothing really new that has
> not been said before in a much simpler way. She's covering up banal
> truisms and leaps of Hegelian fantasy with pretentious verbiage.
You read -- and understand -- Hegel? How is she a Hegelian, pray tell? How do the motifs of early 19th century idealism and the tropes of the nation-state apply to the world of late capitalism?
-- Dennis