Peter Montgomery wrote:
> From: Nancy Gish [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> the fact that Thatcher is an assertive woman who had a great deal of power
> and no doubt benefited an a broadly general way from the developing idea
> that women could be in politics
> For me, the above, as you have clearly stated it,
> was most of the issue, and you seemed very reluctant to admit it.
> The other part of my point was that the injection of the anima
> factor into politics has not brought about the much vaunted
> changes in less hostility and more compassion that were promoted.
(1) We were reluctant to "admit it" because it seems too utterly trivial
to be an issue. I guess I don't understand at all why you even wanted to
(2) "Much vaunted changes" seems to refer to a world that doesn't exist.
I would like to know who did the vaunting. I'm not asking for particular
examples -- you can find examples of any damn thing. Someplace in this
hemisphere there is a black woman advocating male and white supremacy on
the basis of a christian atheism. You have to show, for example, that a
politically important sector of the women's liberation movement
(regarded as politically important by most sectors of that movement)
advocated ERA on the basis of its bringing less hostility etc. I don't
believe that such a sector existed. Hence I don't find the non-existence
of the "change" of much interest.
(2a) On there being examples of "any damn thing," there is a recent
book, _Marx's Revenge_ out by s Desai [don't know who he is], the thesis
of which is "capitalism is the true revolutionary force today so Marx
would be a capitalist" now. (I understand that he argues that today Marx
would be a follower of Hayek.)