I didn't take you for a Weberian, Charles, I would have thought that you would have located the drive towards war in a more materialist explanation, like the division and redivision of the world economy in the epoch of imperialism. But, hey, if you really think it's really all down to patriarchy then that's an interesting argument, too.
In message <88256797.00610E52.00 at mail.fragomen.com>,
DENNIS_CLAXTON at fragomen.com writes
>Jim, what neighborhood does Coward live in? What academic research is she
>referring to? Do you accept her sweeping generalizations that, at least in
>this article, are mostly supported by anecdotes? If so is this consistent
>with calling Kelley (mistakenly I think) on making a generalization from
>the list of abuses she posted?
Well, we shall have to wait and see if Rosalind Coward's book supports the arguments she makes (Sacred Cows, I believe it is called). I don't agree with all that Coward says, but I thought the article was worth posting as an indication that not a few feminists have baulked at the anti-male theme that they perceive there.
Doubtless Coward is, like most people, limited, but she does have a considerable academic and journalistic experience to draw upon. I find to hand what I think is her first book (written with John Ellis), Language and Materialism: Developments in Semiology and the Theory of the Subject, 1977. Since then she has published regularly, as well as writing for the Guardian newspaper over here.
-- Jim heartfield