Misc. threads

[Liza Featherstone]

For her excellent article in the current Harper's, Ehrenreich spent three
weeks as a domestic worker scraping gum off rich people's floors. How much
more dirty-fingernailed can you get? And no, it's not "testosterone-laden"
because that's not what class politics is or should be anymore. What would a
"testosterone Marxism" possibly have to offer all the women who make $5/hour
working as maids? 

The Martha Stewart analogy is curiously trivializing -- is writing about
women's labor political/theoretical potpourri?

Liza

 
----------
>From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>Subject: Re: Misc. threads
>Date: Wed, Mar 22, 2000, 9:42 AM
>


>Chuck Grimes wrote:
>
>>A question for Doug to ask, Barbara Ehrenreich. One male list member
>>wanted to know if you consider yourself the Martha Stewart of
>>progressive politics? That is finding all the interesting and useful
>>things to do with Marxism, without actually getting to close to the
>>testosterone laden, dirty fingernailed, and sweaty business of it
>>all. [I actually like reading her, but in the last thing Kelley
>>posted, I notice BE dodged the hard part about class.]
>
>Uh, I don't think I'll ask her that, because, among other reasons, BE 
>is admirable and MS is annoying. What are you getting at? What does 
>she dodge? Why is the hard part about class so manly, anyway? Isn't 
>one of her recurring points that it isn't? And isn't she right about 
>that?
>
>Doug