i didn't say it was his position. my earlier post was that i thought his argument was a no-brainer. big fat duh. i was irritated that, after a decade of the same critique being launched by more people than I can count, he's making it again as if it's something new.
as i mentioned, I agreed that it was unfair in so far as I didn't have time to re-read the book, which I read and wrote about here last year, on the advice of Carl Estabrook, a regular poster to the list who teaches at the same uni at Michaels.
But, as Voyou points out, and she is right: this guy doesn't quote the very women of color who have made this critique. he doesn't go back to the founding statement of identity politics and point out that it did not ignore a leftist class analysis. Quick!
As Voyou said, this is an inexplicable negligience on his part and, as such, it undermines the power of his argument. Without acknowledging and respecting a tradition of criticism, especially as it's already been made by men and women of color and white women, it certainly shaped my interpretation: he's shallow; it's all surface.
I didn't find anything about his rhetorical style that was provocative. Instead, I found him boring and repetitive. This might be from years steeped in the literature, I don't know. But if you read him, he pretty much says the same thing over and over and over again. I got the impression his target audience was college sophomores, so maybe they need the repetition.
shag