>What would be the appropriate response? If you thought you
>could engage him in a serious conversation, wouldn't you go about showing why
>that point of view was mistaken? If you thought it was impossible to do that,
>wouldn't you just ignore him? Would you instead announce that "only ignorant
>men, some of them who call themselves Marxists, think that the "Wages for
>Housework" is a "misguided" or "potentially disastrous" political strategy."?
>Would you say that "these pricks simply don't know what the fuck they are
>talking about, and they obviously have little understanding of the feminism,
>or contact with feminist women for that matter."?
>
>The notion that any strategy for advancing a struggle is beyond discussion is
>simply a move to close down open democratic debate, and appoint -- no,
>self-appoint -- the pope, the commissar of that struggle.
well crap. i didn't have my fuckme pumps and pearls on when i glanced at and replied to this earlier. let me slip 'em on and go for a ride with ya leo!
art didn't say no one could discuss it. art was looking for and disappointed with the fact that the discussion was retreading things tha black reparations activists have already discussed at length. and you can bet yer left nut, leo, that i'd call any man who sat around talking about how misguided the wages for work movement was since an entire body of scholarship -- namely SOCIALIST FUCKING FEMINISM--emerged, in part, out of the limitations of that movement. ferchrisakes. and i'd be just as fucking pissed as art. maybe not -- most men on this list make no pretenses to actually having read feminist theory or thinking that feminism even matters. but a lot of folks around this joint think that anti racism matters. it would sure piss me off if doug or charles or carrol spoke of feminism in the above manner -- since they DO try to keep up with feminist theory and regularly try to make space for it on this list.
there.
i just didn't want to miss my chance to type fuckme pumps for ya.
kelley