Reply #99: Her problem is that she is an Iconoclast and as Molly Ivins said "an asshole" [View All]

[izzybeans]

I can't say I agree with her on most points, but she does have the reactionary nature of identity politics pegged pretty well. Yet she doesn't get the irony of her own reactionary firebrand bullshit everytime she calls someone else a reactionary.

I don't think she understands post-structuralism (she clearly doesn't read feminist sociology of science) and she definitely resents the prestige bestowed upon French philosophy and the primarily non-academic American public feminist icons.

I've only read her public writings on anti-sexuality. I agree with her critics that she overgeneralizes a fringe element in the women's movement, however seductive their critiques of American culture maybe. There is only so many SCUM Manifesto readings one can make, and those were the ramblings of a rightfully troubled individual.

She should also keep her ideas about socialization and sexual attraction out of politics. She conflates (whether she intends it or not I don't know) a long running ontological problem between the social and political sciences with Rush Limbaugh style bullshit about it "being a choice". The socialization thesis in fact does not support that. "Rational Choice" is a myth that supports our current unequal economic conditions and rightwingers use it as a hammer in sexual politics. This is why it is politically correct to use the "it's biological" thesis. It's an academic discussion that has been politicized by people who have no idea what they are actually saying. I would put her in that camp.