>Interesting that I can't critique, only make complaints by your lights.
a critique gives reasons. it is an argument: an assertion is backed by evidence, logic, illustration, empirical data. i don't recall a discussion of strcuturalism from you that proceeded in that way. what i saw was an assertion about the misuse of structuralism followed by the claim that maybe men are unconscious of what they are doing--which would be a structuralist explanation. mina, in fact, would probably agree with you that men's actions are unconscious. i would agree with you! no one said that anyone sat around planning how to oppress people--which was what you interpreted mina as doing when she maintained that oppression serves the function of disciplining the labor force (just as marxists claim that the reserve army of labor disciplines the work force).
>Better to leave it to the experts, eh?
well, some experts would like to say, "structurlism sucks and i'm right because i have alphabet soup after my name or i've written this book or these articles." so, no.
>Ok, I see I don't understand enough about structuralism; I'll get on
>it. If I made a mistake in characterizing what I thought was
>structuralism, please pardon me.
well, there was a discussion not too long ago about how a structuralist analysis is fundamental to what constitutes a left framework of analysis. i find the criticism you offered particularly troubling given that, as rob said, you don't know me. therefore, you don't know my position on the issue and you attacked something i said without putting it in that wider context--a wider context i could count on steve and rob to understand given a history of exchanges on this list and given a shared disciplinary framework.
>I meant the remark in fun, as I've said. When I first came on the list, I
>characterized you as a "fun" person who likes to joke. I offered the
>"bully" title as a friendly joke, acknowledging that you can do to me
>intellectually what a bully can do on a playground to a much weaker child
>i.e. "beat me up".
i don't see anyone here as a weak child so i treat them as people perfectly capable of having a good rousing argument. it's only a list. you seem to find my remarks bullying simply because i articulate a position and make an argument for it. i don't think this compares to being a bully. i have been told that i scare people before. i take the criticism seriously but i cannot do much about it if what is being asked of me is to shut up (i won't because this is a discussion list where people advance positions and defend those positions) OR, alternatively, i can't do much about if i'm not given the decency of a serious estimation of what exactly i have done to harm someone else.
>I guess I can't do it to your satisfaction. Again, my apologies.
well, you did offlist. if you want to bring it on list, i'll play. pope carrol was called pope by budge (joe no onan) becuaase he makes pronouncements about how the left ought to behave, what it should do and why. if you can find where i do that on a regular basis, then you're claim that i'm a bully or mater superior may have some basis.
kelley