info at pulpculture.org wrote:
>
> At 05:38 PM 3/21/2006, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> >How would you (Anthony) react to the following proposition: "I am not
> >equal to a woman, better than a woman, less than a woman. I am a man,
> >and that is not defined by a presence or absence of womanhood."?
> >
> >What do you (Anthony) think "manhood" is defined by?
> >
> >Carrol
>
> I am rather surprised that you ignored the racism in the original post!
I didn't. It was the first thing I focused on, and for that reason simply ignored the original post with a sigh. But seeing Anthony's post quoted by Justin, I was affronted by the sloppy logic. I think Barbara Fields's image nicely covers the original. Those who separate racism from class or gender (or some other mixture) and argue for which to "privilege" resemble a mathematician who spent his/her lifetime arguing over whether the denominator or the numerator of fractions was most important. I don't recall just now Anthony's general perspective from other posts, and his playing around with the question I focused on certainly doesn't show much understanding of either white or male supremacy and their corresponding ideologies.
Carrol
P.S. Re the subject line, "it lives." In a maximally individuated society, form a perspective by throwing darts at a dictionary and you will find someone someplace who belives fervently in the resulting ideology. Of course it [blank check] lives.