>From: Rob Schaap <rws at comedu.canberra.edu.au>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>Subject: Re: Churchill
>Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 19:23:20 +1100
>I just felt I was talking about something a little more specific than what
>we seem to be talking about now.
Uh-huh. Kelley gave some extremely specific examples, right off the bat. They were examples of sexual harassment of workers. You dismissed them, and went on to say you would enjoy such treatment. This does not show much understanding of the theory. You repeatedly dismissed her examples by making comments on loveliness, furtive glances et al. Now you are saying that while I am discussing theory, you're discussing specifics. Actually, I'm discussing specifics too. I'm specifically discussing your inability to contextualize sexual harassment. This is not your insensitivity, a word which implies that you're being tactless. It's foolishness, a word which implies you're not putting your thinking cap on properly.
And the comparison to your being dissed for not thinking apartheid is a good thing was just priceless! People always talk about how you can't tell anyone's race on Usenet, and I'm like, *I wish* this were true.
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp