>and this one from brett to Katha: "I'm not sure what you mean by the
>"structure of sex and gender." But I'm sure you will educate me."
I didn't mean to be flippant, although now that you point this out I can see how it could be taken that way. So I want to apologize to you and Katha if it came off that way.
But I really didn't know what Katha meant by the phrase "structure of sex and gender."
>now, why on earth should anyone have to explain any of this to any of you?
Because I didn't know what she meant. If someone says "women make less than men, even when working the same job" I know what that means. When someone refers to the "structure of sex and gender," I'm not sure what they are talking about.
>if bill gates descended on the list and said, 'please explain why
>capitalism sucks and why i should support socialism/marxism' and then he
>proceeded to object with his i heart capitalism arguments, what do you
>suppose would happen.
This seems a bit harsh, as I did not say I heart patriarchy, or try to rub anything in anyone else's face, at least not on purpose. I certainly don't think you and Katha are nutters.
Besides, if I have a political conversation with someone else who asks me what's wrong with capitalism, that person probably doesn't know. The mainstream press sure hasn't told anybody. If I tell them its because capitalism exploits and alienates labor, they probably still won't understand.
>yes, you're right capitalism stinks. but that these attitudes thrive here
>on *this* list doesn't suggest to me that a socialist revolution is going
>to change a whole lot in and of itself. and so, therefore, sexism and
>structural sexism probably lie in places other than the capitalist
>organization of the economy.
I agree that socialism doesn't necessarily mean equality of the sexes (although it would bring down some barriers to it).
>so yeah, how much peole make and their material ability to live counts.
>it's important. but one of the points of feminist analyses is to ask not
>only how images of women and representations of women interact with,
>contribute to, affect the decisions made that result in a segregated,
>gender unequal dividison of labor, but also how it's not just about
>material "things" but also about feelings of self worth, dignity, access to
>a range of choices and possibilities in one's life etc and so on.
Fine. I agree with you here. But I still don't see a problem with older men dating younger women. If, starting tomorrow, men only dated women their same age, all of the things you talk about would still exist, and none of the problems you mentioned would be solved. Which is all I meant to say in the first place.
Brett