>Are you identifying the the modern women's movement with neoclassical
>economics?
Of course not. I'm identifying your ridiculous instruction to start from the most abstract level rather than the level of individual example with bourgeois econometrics. Of course, generalizing by example can be a very risky business. And of course we all have theoretical maps in our heads - some explicitly acknowledged, some not - by which we read the world. But if you don't let theory and example illuminate and alter each other, then you're just braindead. And it blinds you to changes in relations between the sexes over the last 40 or so year, and to changes in the nature of imperialism over the last 100.
The modern women's movement has been a great political triumph, and to say that the U.S. is a male-supremacist social order, without any kind of historical nuance, is a slight on the movement's achievements.
Doug