>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.
Anthony's comments were probably out of context. He's a black leftist with a pretty well-formulated critique of capitalism that runs through pretty much everything he writes.
Your last criticism is just ignorant of what's going on around you in terms of feminist practice and the more popular books on the subject lately -- e.g., Ariel Levy's _Female Chauvinist Pigs_ and even, good gawd, Marueen Dowd's _Are Men Necessary_ (which, tg, doesn't make much of an argument b/c Dowd's so confused. The subterranean context, though, is a tendency toward a radfem analysis that is more subtle but no less disgusting in its racializing analyses.