> Of course, women are attacked for abstract thinking, too! They're
> supposed to be concerned with concrete relationships, emotions, et
> cetera.
>
> I think it's interesting that anti-intellectualism takes such a
> gendered form, no? Keeping people in their gender roles requires that
> they not think. Maybe there's something to this on functionalist
> grounds, or maybe it's just that thinking abstracts one from the sexed
> body.
>
> (I think I'm overposting; I'll stop.)
> - Show quoted text -
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
Yeah... I guess I could put this forward in gender neutral terms and completely fail to make a point. But then I'd be joining most of the Left in making a lack of statement in subordination to a statement; which would be perfect from a contemporary "feminist" point of view. Why make a point about gender, when you can pretend it doesn't exist through questionable intellectual manoeuvring?