[lbo-talk] Dean Baker on immigration

[ravi]

At around 20/4/06 12:05 pm, info at pulpculture.org wrote:
> At 11:54 AM 4/20/2006, ravi wrote:
>>
>> Why is that? After all Feminist and male are not mutually exclusive
>> circles. I am a feminist (or at least so I believe) and I think I would
>> get as fair a hearing on feminist issues on LBO as I would for the other
>> 'ists' that I am (and their issues). What am I missing?
>>
>> Though, as noted in my previous post, the thing with 'ism's and being
>> 'ist's is that I have to watch out for blinkers (of both types) and also
>> each member's version of the 'ism' might be different (as seen by the
>> many debates on Bitch|Lab).
> 
> ravi -- is anyone bringing them up now that Yoshie and I don't post as
> much? it's been cracking me up watching how, in the absence of people
> like me, yoshie, brian, and others yakking about this, de nada.
> 
> but i don't really have time for this. the notion that you can't even
> see it's absence is fucking irritating me and I suspect that's exactly
> how marta feels: the complete and utter absence of any discussion unless
> _she_ brings it up.
> 

Well, I don't know if anyone brought up feminism in the last 6 months. I
haven't been on LBO during that period. But wait a second: where do you
see me saying that feminist discussion is present or absent? You wrote:


>> The analogy is, of course, the fact that, as Carrol once noted long ago,
>> raising feminist issues in a male-dominated space like LBO is a total
>> joke. I'd find the quote, but I'm too lazy.

And I responded:


> Why is that? After all Feminist and male are not mutually exclusive
> circles. I am a feminist (or at least so I believe) and I think I would
> get as fair a hearing on feminist issues on LBO as I would for the other
> 'ists' that I am (and their issues). What am I missing?

The "What am I missing?" was meant to ask, what am I missing in my
logic/reasoning.

Are you saying that: a) feminist discussion has been missing on LBO. b)
I have failed to notice that. c) Therefore I do not realize that
feminist discussion is unwelcome/unsupported on LBO?

I am afraid I don't get this either. The most I get at point (c) is that
if (a) is true, then feminist discussion is uninteresting (to initiate)
for LBO members. And I think, given the nature of LBO, even that
conclusion requires further justification.

I am afraid I disagree that this sort of thing is a justifiable source
of irritation. The #1 issue for me is animal rights (and I use the word
'rights' loosely here, since I do not quite understand what 'rights'
means). How often does that come up, do you think? I don't think I can
get irritated about that. WTF, I would actually be glad if people not
mention it ;-), because most of the time the mention is in order to
ridicule it.

If Marta was irritated, pissed, or even if she chose to write "If only
you pro-immigrant bleeding hearts had the same attitude towards disabled
people", then yes, its understandable. Instead she wrote the stuff that
Doug and Yoshie have summarized, along with quotes from organisations
like FAIR (not Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting).

Marta's frustration and anger stemming from the pathetic level of
services and treatment for/of disabled people is understandable. Most of
the responses to her have been to either ask her to explain how she
reaches her conclusions and opinions about immigrants and/or
counter-arguments that show why her opinions are not justified.

	--ravi