Jim--
What in the world *have* you been reading about sexual politics for the past ten years, my good man? If by "light years ahead" you mean feminist, sex-positive and critical of retrograde right-wing elements in the feminist movement and in the mainstream, I can only assume you haven't read Ellen Willis, Alice Echols, Susie Bright, Carole Vance, Dorothy Allison, Arlene Stein, Ann Snitow, Barbara Ehrenreich, Deirdre English, Joan Nestle, Gayle Rubin...I could go on and on. most of those women have been writing since the 70s and 80s and are still writing. Roiphe's first book displays complete ignorance of the debates on sex that feminists had been having since before she was born. And going a little more younger -- how about Bust magazine? and if your idea of "light years ahead" is ahistorically caricaturing feminists as hysterical prudes...that kind of crap is even easier to find.
wrong as you are about Katie Roiphe, your irony about Doug is even more misplaced. I can't think of a better-looking guy.
Liza
>
>In message <v04011701b3881d2aca20@[166.84.250.86]>, Doug Henwood
><dhenwood at panix.com> writes
>> But the woman is an idiot. She knows nothing about feminism and,
>>at least in conversation, she doesn't seem all that bright.
>
>>From which we can surmise that you haven't read The Morning After, or
>Last Night in Paradise. I have. And I can confirm that both are streets
>ahead of anything else I've read on sexual politics in ten years. She
>certainly does know about feminism, which she writes about extensively,
>and with devastating accuracy.
>
>As to the speculation that her success is all down to looks, well, what
>can I say? (Of course, we all know that Doug's success is in spite his
>devastatingly good looks, not because of them).
>--
>Jim heartfield
>