>Todd Archer wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'd stared at that sentence for some time last night and hadn't got
> it. I still don't understand it this morning. Could you please explain
> what you're talking about? And where did I claim otherwise i.e. that I
> am or am not using a structuralist perspective?
>
>Give it up Todd. You are dealing with a critique drenched in the history
>of ideas, in which frozen ideas exist in rigid boxes. This allows the
>historian of ideas to see all actual thought as merely a contradictory
>mash of fragmentary ideas drawn from one or another box. But your posts
>on this thread have reminded me of a perception I toyed with well over a
>decade ago but dropped and forgot. What is now called "deconstruction"
>is merely a new (and more intellectually dissolute) incarnation of
>Lovejoy's history of ideas.
>
>Carrol
i'll remind you that in your haste to follow the US gov's "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" you've forgotten that todd's and rob's critique of a materialist feminist (structuralist) analysis was about 1. imputing rational motivations to men conscious of their desires to oppress women and 2. failing to account for individual subjective differences. neither, of course, went on in mina's or my posts.
kelley