> not new. I would be content with a formulation of an old truth which gives
> it sharper or more relevant focus, but I have not found anything of that sort
> in her either.
You won't find much gender-bending in Johnson, though.
> And she is dishonest. Her blatant dishonesty in the NLR article (refusing
> to name specific instances and specific writers who exemplifed "marxist
> conservatism") is not an aberration but a reflection of her basic rhetorical
> strategies in *Feminist Contentions* and *Bodies That Matter*.
I think it's more like she's practicing a little solidarity here -- not giving in to the tendency, which our bourgeois press just loves, to see radicals waste their time in self-immolating catfights, rather than focusing on the issues. When it comes to naming names, Adornic discretion is often the better part of Leninist valor.
-- Dennis