well, it's what i do and i'll bet that if you read what i do you wouldn't castigate it as such be/c you'd agree with my politics.
it is flat out wrong to chide an ethnographer for not using a statistically representative sample. i'd suggest some feminists on ethnography to understand what i mean.
my complaints have been that i think he should be criticized for what he actually wrote, not because of rumors, not b/c you think he's antifeminist or whatever, or even that he's not a socialst or that he doesn't use a marxist definition of class. internal critique is a good thing. there is plenty to criticize in his work in those terms without the nonsense that i read early on. holding those standards is what you do for others, you could at least be consist no matter how much you dislike his politics or person.
i'm glad i pressed for more substantial discussions because what had been typed until i did was sad and embarrassing. as chris said, we can do better than that.
but i dream. i actually expect people to read an author. i expect the conlibs to trash keynes for what keynes wrote not his supposed status as a fabian socialist who believe in socialism with out the revo. i actually expect well read more literate people here to trash wolfe for what he wrote, not his supposed antifeminism.
no one should have to press us for "smart" and "solid" critiques of these people. i'm not here to defend wolfe so much as express outrage that people couldn't be bothered to do anything but ritualistically bash. i believe the thread on hitchy poo is making the same complaint.
>Doug