>A complete nominalism, towards which both Kelley and Charles move here,
>dissolves thought in general and marxist thought in particular. The
>denial of "woman" as a catetgory was not, shall we say, categorical: it
>denied (as I would) a realist conception of "woman" as an essence
>existing prior to and independently of the particulars in which it
>manifested itself. It also denied various culturally determined
>conceptions of women (naturally care-giving, etc.), but in so far as
>those feminists actually denied any kind of historical reality to
>"woman" they were not so astute, since, for example, they would by that
>deny Title IX of the Civil Rights Act.
right. which, of course, only matters if you live in the U.S. from 1964 -2001.
and, moreover, all those feminists have actually tread the ground you tread carrol. you're reinventing the wheel if you think you're telling me something. the lecturing on this topic is quite annoying! as if contemporary feminists don't have a clue and haven't written reams.
see, for instance, linda alcoff "The Problem of Speaking For". I've cited it here already (see google search terms "lbo-talk alcoff speaking")
there are many, many more discussions of the issue, enough to constitute a 10 p bibliography, easy.
kelley
kelley