> I've been a bit puzzled why this debate is even occurring. Faludi's
> first book, *Backlash*, was a wonderful work of *journalism*. Her
> attempts at analysis were best passed over politely in silence. This
> is not too uncommon. Three other fine works of journalism, Joan
> Smith, *Misognynies* and and Wendy Lesser, *Pictures at an
> Execution*, and Jerome G. Miller, Search and Destroy: African-
> American Males in the Criminal Justice System* are of considerable
> use for what they do give, and it would be silly to argue endlessly
> over their analytic power or the lack of it.
do is '*journalism*' pushing the envelope in your lexicon of putdowns, or is there a Rezeptionstheorist inside you wildly signalling to be let out? i could be mistaken, but i'd wager that faludi probably thinks her work is humanist in some way, but if she fails to be systematic in her approach to History then, according to your announced criteria, she's a Criminal.
as though there was a clear line between 'systematic' treat- ments of X or Y subject other than that advanced by theorists of A or B 'systematic' approach to M or N 'discipline'--his- tory, of course, being the Queen of the Human Sciences.
ah, yes; this thread is even occurring because someone slag- ged faludi for the proto-crime of failing to conform to some parochially defined programmatic analysis.
confusing indeed.
> Does Faludi's new book provide the same kind of useful journalistic
> material as her first book did? If not, I certainly would not read it for
> whatever analytic usefulness it might have. The posts so far do not
> suggest the book contains much in the way of useful information.
depends how you define utility, doesn't it?
cheers, t - still hasn't read it, but wasn't present at Creation either