Laurence Moss asked,    
> "Why Becker's Treatise on the family give a strong  
> impetus to the feminist critique of the neoclassical tool kit?"  
>   
Robin Neill replied:  
> Because it was such a vacuous, formalistic exercize ?  
>   
  
  
I thank Robin Neill for his response but even if it were a "vacuous,   
formalistic execise," why do formalistic vacuous exercises provoke a "feminist   
critique"?  What  makes a critique of a body of economic analysis "feminist"?   I really
would like to know.  Perhaps my question is unanswerable as I expect it
will be and that helps me make an important point--we should use language more   
carefully even when all we want to do is blow off some steam.  
  
Laurence Moss