SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
[log in to unmask] (Samuel Bostaph)
Date:
Fri Mar 31 17:18:52 2006
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (27 lines)
[I think it's time to start a new thread since this isn't about anniversaries any more.
(And I am sorry for the typo I didn't catch in all of those subject lines.)
  
This conversation came from  
  
http://eh.net/pipermail/hes/2006-January/003466.html  
  
HB]  
  
  
  
E. Roy Weintraub said:  
>A critique of a body [sic -- whose?] of economic analysis may be called   
>"feminist" if that critique is developed from an analysis of the gendered  
>assumptions that underlie the distinctions and presuppostions of those texts.  
  
  
What's a "gendered assumption"?  Words have genders in some languages, but I  
take it that you are not referring to that aspect of language.  
  
Samuel Bostaph  
  
  
  
  
 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2