>When you, as someone who complains about the lack of careful scholarship
around
>here, so obviously doesn't bother to read carefully before jumping, I
start to
>look for motive. Now I know you never miss a chance to turn the conversation
>toward the socialization of sex. But, within reason, that's Ok; its the
important
>part of the debate in this case. Such discourse had nothing to do with my
post,
>but, still, this doesn't explain much. Here's my clue. Your
"misunderstanding"
>of my post created the space for Carrol to trod down that irrelevant road
with
>you, pretending he didn't know what he said either. Aha. Carrol and
Yoshie have
>agreed to make you a member of their comedy team, haven't they? Good work,
>comrade!
so you want to import marx economic base model to the study of gender is that it? you want to argue that you can locate the laws of motion behind gender relations in reproductive sex? go ahead, take a whack at it. i would truly love to see how it is that you can explain the way in which men and women relate to one another by looking at the laws of motion located in our our sex organs.
how do you explain today that there are three genders in many actually existing societies? shall i invite jim craven to take a look at the things youwill have to say about how the hopi are stupid?
>
>> furthermore, i would point out to you that a lot of marxists think that
>
>> there are only two classes that are in competition despite the objective
>> reality of what looks like at least three if not more classes in
>> competition. compeitition between manual and professional, between service
>> labor and manual labor, between owners and employees. and on and on.
>>
>> his claim, as you know, is based entirely on theory because the 18th
>> brumaire is an exploration of the real effects of class divisiveness along
>> lines that don't separate out into bourg v. prole.
>
>Now it's you turn, kelley. Before you again let loose in public such
half-baked
>meanderings about Marx, you need to read and learn something about what he
>actually wrote, starting with what his object was (hint: to uncover the
laws of
>motion of capital and capitalism), how he chose to go about it, and what
were the
>important elements he identified, as opposed to the peripheral (or what
could be
>abstracted from). Then set out to understand how material conditions have
changed
>and what that means for the laws of motion now. When you do, you will see
that
>what you say here falls into either of two categories: incorrect and
meaningless
>
>RO
>
>
>
>