>On Nov 21, 2009, at 9:16 PM, shag carpet bomb wrote:
>
>>At 08:22 PM 11/21/2009, Doug Henwood wrote:
>>
>>>On Nov 21, 2009, at 6:38 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:
>>>
>>>>anti-racist activity
>>>
>>>Which is what, exactly? One of the points of Adolph Reed's LBO
>>>article
>>>is that it's hard to imagine an actual material practice that
>>>corresponds to this phrase. It does, however, frequently lead to
>>>sermonizing.
>>>
>>>Doug
>>
>>every time you do this, I wonder if Adolph enjoys being a
>>sacramental. is it just that you're a recovering catholid or what? i
>>left the typo so I could beat out carrol
>
>Ok, so you don't have an answer. And Carrol never answers questions.
>So, anyone else?
>
>Doug
I realize you pride yourself on asking questions as a strategy to get conversation going. But it can be problematic if it doesn't seem that you're sincere. In this case, it's not clear to me you want an answer. Why? Because I already gave you an answer -- twice. I'm sure you can read your own archives. But when I gave those answers, you didn't respond. That tells me you aren't especially sincere. Why should I waste my time? I've already wasted it, and now you want me to do so again?
As I said in those answers, and in other posts,there's a literature on this topic. It is especially compelling in feminist literature. So maybe it would be easier to read these books. There's no history there and no relationships to destroy as has happened here.
Also, if it's difficult to understand, one way you could think about it is to consider how men on this list do anti-sexist work, such as yourself and Gar Lipow. Gar Lipow has made his understanding of anti-sexist work manifest here before. I'm not sure why you do it, but you have. So maybe just thinking about your own approach in another context would help you understand. I also see that you do same wrt to anti-heterosexism, so maybe that's another way to look at it. shag
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)