Charles Brown has been a long-time subscriber to m-fem (a marxism-feminism e-list, moderated by Martha Gimenez, Carrol, and Malgosia -- moderators with firm hands & firmer convictions), and were he condescending to women in general, he wouldn't be able to stay on that list. I don't think you are justified in making this charge.
If a condescending attitude is a problem, I'd have to say that Charles is one of the least guilty. On the scale of cyber-decorum, I think Michael Hoover, James Farmelant, Michael Perelman, John Mage, Curtiss Leung, Maureen Anderson, Peter Kilander, and Peter Van Heusden would score high, and the rest of us should emulate their good manners (I had better emulate their manners myself, but if I did, I'd disappoint Max!). It's interesting, though, that those with good manners tend not to receive many replies, which probably says something about the nature of e-list discussion in which our focus tends to be on disagreements (and expressing them with flair and panache).
>but again,i'd really like to know why this matters. what difference does
>it make. serious quesiton and i'd like serious answer. oh and while i'm
>thinking of it: no duh! ange, theory doesn't dictate practice. but it
>must shape it, have an impact, affect it... somehowerother or you wouldn't
>be bumming over differences like this. so.
>From my experience, I'd say that a correct epistemological position is not
at all required for political participation on the correct side. Those who
opposed the NATO bomings ranged from marxists, anarchists, Third-Worldists,
Serbs & Serbian-Americans of a variety of political persuasions, die-hard
religious lefties/pacifists, and conservatives of various stripes.
Political analysis does seem to make a difference, however, when we see who
supported the bombings and/or failed to oppose them. One cannot but notice
that social democrats tended to line up on the other side. (Remember
Doug's article on the Dissentoids?)
Yoshie